Is it safe to trust that the next REF will reward a wider range of outputs?

The people advocating for widened definitions of research excellence through impact, engagement, and less basic and more applied research wouldn't recognise excellent research if it hit them on the nose.

The author is absolutely right that it will largely be down to institutions to deliver on the intentions of REF2029 to achieve an 'enhanced assessment of excellence', which will be undone if they act conservatively and submit the 'safe' research that was the hallmark of previous exercises. However, the author - and more significantly whoever wrote the summary of this piece for the email bulletin this morning, arguing that as a result ECRs "fear being missed out" because of "narrow submission strategies" misses the critical point in the REF2029 design to break the link between the researchers in the unit and the research outputs, impacts and activities submitted. Individuals - whether ECRs or senior Profs - will not be submitted, and it is important that previous perceptions of REF as exclusionary to early career staff especially is not perpetuated by those with the luxury of commenting on it. If unconventional work is not submitted by risk-averse managers, that will mean the ambition of REF2029 won't be delivered - but it will be a reflection on them, and the system the REF represents, rather than those colleagues whose work it is.