Teaching & Learning
- Faculty are directed to set clear expectations in syllabi and assignments, so permitted use is at instructor discretion within academic integrity rules
- The university states that students may use AI as a learning and collaboration aid only if they do not misrepresent AI-generated work as their own and only if the use aligns with course policies
The policy states that “students may use AI as a learning tool to support research, brainstorming, outlining, and revising, provided it aligns with course policies and they do not represent AI-generated work as their own.”
“It is important to note that use of AI in a course may be prohibited or limited by specific faculty syllabi or assignment guidelines.”
“Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate expectations regarding AI use in their syllabi and assignments.”
- The university explicitly permits students to use AI as a learning support tool for activities such as research, brainstorming, outlining, and revision, as long as that use complies with course-specific rules and does not involve presenting AI output as the student's own work
The policy states that “students may use AI as a learning tool to support research, brainstorming, outlining, and revising, provided it aligns with course policies and they do not represent AI-generated work as their own.”
Research
- Separately, the IRB FAQ states that AI can be used for manuscript editing but not for data analysis or interpretation under that FAQ's listed examples
- For sponsored research proposals, the university prohibits submitting proposals that contain generative AI-produced text unless the sponsor expressly allows it
“The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) currently does not permit the use of generative AI for proposal writing unless explicitly permitted by the sponsor.”
“Federal agencies vary in their treatment of generative AI in proposal preparation. Some, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), prohibit use of AI-generated text in proposals and reviews due to concerns about originality, confidentiality, and authorship. Others, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), permit use of generative AI only for editing and revising, but not for generating substantive proposal content, unless otherwise specified in the solicitation. Georgia Southern follows sponsor-specific requirements in all cases and does not permit submission of proposals containing AI-generated content where prohibited.”
“Can I use AI-assisted tools for data analysis or manuscript editing?
Researchers may use AI-assisted tools to support certain aspects of research, but only if the use is transparent, ethically appropriate, and consistent with IRB-approved protocols.
Examples:
Allowable: Manuscript editing for grammar/style (e.g., Grammarly)
Not allowable without review: AI analysis of identifiable participant data or use of AI to generate findings or interpret results”
- The IRB FAQ says AI-assisted tools may be used in research only when their use is transparent, ethically appropriate, and consistent with IRB-approved protocols
- It specifically says AI analysis of identifiable participant data and using AI to generate findings or interpret results are not allowable without review, and it requires disclosure and safeguards when AI tools are used in studies involving human participants or their data
“Researchers may use AI-assisted tools to support certain aspects of research, but only if the use is transparent, ethically appropriate, and consistent with IRB-approved protocols.”
“Not allowable without review: AI analysis of identifiable participant data or use of AI to generate findings or interpret results”
“Should AI tools be disclosed in my IRB application?
Yes. If AI or machine learning tools are involved in any aspect of data collection, analysis, or participant interaction, their role must be clearly described in your IRB protocol.”
“Additional safeguards may be required, especially if the AI tool:
Collects or stores personally identifiable information (PII)
Uses adaptive algorithms that change over time
Is not HIPAA- or FERPA-compliant”
- For proposals, the university says sponsor-specific rules govern and bars submission of AI-generated proposal content when a sponsor prohibits it
- The university requires AI use in human-subjects research to be disclosed in IRB submissions whenever AI or machine learning affects data collection, analysis, or participant interaction
“Should AI tools be disclosed in my IRB application?
Yes. If AI or machine learning tools are involved in any aspect of data collection, analysis, or participant interaction, their role must be clearly described in your IRB protocol.”
“Federal agencies vary in their treatment of generative AI in proposal preparation. Some, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), prohibit use of AI-generated text in proposals and reviews due to concerns about originality, confidentiality, and authorship. Others, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), permit use of generative AI only for editing and revising, but not for generating substantive proposal content, unless otherwise specified in the solicitation. Georgia Southern follows sponsor-specific requirements in all cases and does not permit submission of proposals containing AI-generated content where prohibited.”
Academic Integrity
- The university requires transparency about AI use in research protocols when AI or machine learning is part of data collection, analysis, or participant interaction
- In coursework, the cited source emphasizes compliance with course policies and avoiding misrepresentation of AI-generated work as one's own, but it does not provide a university-wide citation format for student submissions
“Should AI tools be disclosed in my IRB application?
Yes. If AI or machine learning tools are involved in any aspect of data collection, analysis, or participant interaction, their role must be clearly described in your IRB protocol.”
“The policy states that “students may use AI as a learning tool to support research, brainstorming, outlining, and revising, provided it aligns with course policies and they do not represent AI-generated work as their own.”
- The source text frames improper AI use as an academic integrity issue by prohibiting students from representing AI-generated work as their own
- It does not define AI detection tools or a separate AI-specific enforcement process, instead tying expectations to course policies and faculty guidance
“students may use AI as a learning tool to support research, brainstorming, outlining, and revising, provided it aligns with course policies and they do not represent AI-generated work as their own.”
“Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate expectations regarding AI use in their syllabi and assignments.”
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are encouraged to set and communicate course-level expectations about student AI use
- For research administration, staff-facing proposal guidance says OSP does not permit generative AI for proposal writing unless the sponsor explicitly permits it
“Faculty are encouraged to clearly communicate expectations regarding AI use in their syllabi and assignments.”
“The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) currently does not permit the use of generative AI for proposal writing unless explicitly permitted by the sponsor.”
- It also requires that AI services using university data go through approved contracting and security review processes, including risk review, data protection review, and IT services consultation
- The university requires review before acquiring or renewing AI products and before using third-party systems with university data, and it flags AI capabilities as a privacy, security, and compliance issue
“Examples of purchases that require review include, but are not limited to:
Software, systems, and services that: Process, store, or access university data, regardless of where or how they are hosted (including cloud and web-based services), Integrate with university systems or infrastructure, Use emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotic process automation, or related tools.”
“Whether purchasing a new technology or renewing an existing subscription, these reviews are necessary to ensure compatibility with university systems and standards and to evaluate possible risks in privacy, security, accessibility, or compliance.”
“All software and systems that collect, process, transmit, or store university data, or that connect to university infrastructure, must be reviewed before use or renewal, including systems with AI or automated decision-making features.”
“Examples of technology requiring review include, but are not limited to:
Cloud or web-based services storing or accessing university information
AI-enhanced tools or systems that process institutional data”
“If your review identifies use of university data, the system owner will be asked to complete a Third-Party Security and Data Protection Review, and all contracts and renewals must be coordinated through the appropriate university channels.”
- The materials provided do not identify a standalone AI task force or a university-wide AI strategy document beyond these instructional and review structures
- The university presents AI literacy and responsible use as an institutional priority through an AI Fundamentals initiative, while governance for operational AI adoption is handled through formal review processes for technologies using AI or university data
“Georgia Southern University is committed to preparing students, faculty, and staff to engage thoughtfully and ethically with artificial intelligence.”
“AI Fundamentals is designed to help the Georgia Southern community build a shared understanding of AI concepts, uses, risks, and responsibilities.”
“Examples of purchases that require review include, but are not limited to:
Software, systems, and services that: Process, store, or access university data, regardless of where or how they are hosted (including cloud and web-based services), Integrate with university systems or infrastructure, Use emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotic process automation, or related tools.”
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About Armstrong Atlantic State University's AI Policies
Armstrong Atlantic State University has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
The university requires transparency about AI use in research protocols when AI or machine learning is part of data collection, analysis, or participant interaction. In coursework, the cited source emphasizes compliance with course policies and avoiding misrepresentation of AI-generated work as one's own, but it does not provide a university-wide citation format for student submissions.
The source text frames improper AI use as an academic integrity issue by prohibiting students from representing AI-generated work as their own. It does not define AI detection tools or a separate AI-specific enforcement process, instead tying expectations to course policies and faculty guidance.
The university requires review before acquiring or renewing AI products and before using third-party systems with university data, and it flags AI capabilities as a privacy, security, and compliance issue. It also requires that AI services using university data go through approved contracting and security review processes, including risk review, data protection review, and IT services consultation.