Teaching & Learning
- If outside resources are not permitted or if AI is prohibited for the assignment, using AI may also be treated as unauthorized assistance or another Honor Code violation
- The policy also notes that faculty/instructors may set additional course-specific standards and may prohibit outside resources (including AI) entirely, so students should consult their instructor expectations
- For Emory undergraduates, using an AI program to generate content for an assignment is treated as plagiarism and an Honor Code violation unless the student acknowledges the extent of AI contribution and the assignment permits outside resources
Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment (including, but not limited to examinations, papers, homework, and creative work) constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent to which an artificial intelligence program contributed to their work and outside resources are permitted for the assignment.
The use of an artificial intelligence program for an academic assignment when outside resources are not permitted or when the use of artificial intelligence programs is prohibited may also constitute seeking unauthorized assistance or violate other provisions of the Honor Code.
In addition to the violations enumerated in this article, instructors at Emory University have reasonable discretion to establish specific standards and policies as related to their courses and assignments.
Such additional standards and policies should be clearly articulated in the syllabus, in the assignment, or otherwise conveyed as an expectation by the instructor.
Using artificial intelligence programs for any part of an assignment without acknowledgment in the assignment. Note that faculty may also prohibit the use of outside resources, including AI programs, entirely.
- Separately, Emory’s Honor Code prohibits use of electronic devices during examinations unless an instructor explicitly allows them
- If outside resources are not permitted or the use of AI programs is prohibited for the exam/assessment, AI use may also constitute unauthorized assistance or violate other Honor Code provisions
- For Emory undergraduates, using an AI program to generate content for examinations is treated as plagiarism and an Honor Code violation unless the student acknowledges the extent of AI contribution and outside resources are permitted
Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment (including, but not limited to examinations, papers, homework, and creative work) constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent to which an artificial intelligence program contributed to their work and outside resources are permitted for the assignment.
The use of an artificial intelligence program for an academic assignment when outside resources are not permitted or when the use of artificial intelligence programs is prohibited may also constitute seeking unauthorized assistance or violate other provisions of the Honor Code.
The use of a cell phone, smartphone, tablet, laptop, smartwatch, headphones, or similar device for any reason during times of examination (broadly defined here as quizzes, tests, midterm and final exams, or similar assignments or evaluations) is prohibited. Instructors are entitled to make exceptions to allow the use of an electronic device for any examination. In the absence of explicit permission to use such a device, it is assumed that such devices are not permitted.
- It also cautions not to rely solely on AI for generating new ideas, emphasizing that final decisions and direction should remain human-driven
- The guidance says users should validate AI-generated facts against trusted sources and should not rely on AI as the sole source of information
- Emory’s Responsible AI guidance describes AI as a permitted tool for exploring topics, generating ideas, and synthesizing information, but emphasizes that AI outputs are not inherently reliable and should not replace human judgment or critical thinking
Artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool for exploring topics, generating ideas, and synthesizing information.
However, AI outputs are not inherently reliable and should never replace human judgment, critical thinking, or ethical decision-making.
Validate AI-generated facts against trusted sources
AI tools should not be relied upon as the sole source of information. It is essential to cross-reference content with reputable sources to maintain accuracy.
Do not rely solely on AI for the generation of new ideas
AI can be a powerful tool for ideation and brainstorming, but it should never replace human creativity or critical thinking.
- The provided sources do not include programming-specific rules (e.g., for code-generation tools) beyond these general assignment standards
- Emory’s undergraduate Honor Code appendix treats use of an AI program to generate any content for any assignment as plagiarism unless the student acknowledges the extent of AI contribution and outside resources are permitted, and notes AI use may also be unauthorized assistance where outside resources are not permitted or AI is prohibited
Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment (including, but not limited to examinations, papers, homework, and creative work) constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent to which an artificial intelligence program contributed to their work and outside resources are permitted for the assignment.
The use of an artificial intelligence program for an academic assignment when outside resources are not permitted or when the use of artificial intelligence programs is prohibited may also constitute seeking unauthorized assistance or violate other provisions of the Honor Code.
Research
- The guidance also recommends disclosing AI involvement where relevant or required (e.g., in co-authored papers or public reports)
- For research publications, Emory instructs investigators and authors to verify whether AI use is permissible by checking the AI authorship/content-generation policies of target journals
- Emory’s Responsible AI guidance supports using AI for drafting, refining, and polishing written content in academic contexts but emphasizes appropriate human oversight and review prior to adoption
Artificial intelligence offers powerful capabilities to assist in drafting, refining, and polishing written content across academic, clinical, and administrative contexts.
However, responsible use requires maintaining appropriate human oversight, ensuring accuracy, protecting sensitive information, and preserving the integrity of original scholarship and authorship.
Research and publications: Investigators and authors preparing manuscripts for submission should review the AI authorship and content-generation policies of their target journals.
Review and verify all AI-generated or AI-edited content
Content produced by AI tools should be reviewed prior to adoption in clinical, administrative or other organizational setting.
Disclose AI involvement where relevant or required (e.g., in co-authored papers or public reports).
- It also advises against relying solely on AI analysis for decision-making and encourages careful review, validation, and interpretation of AI results
- The guidance recommends data minimization and states de-identification is a required best practice for restricted data use, including when using Emory-approved AI tools
- Emory’s Responsible AI guidance allows AI use in data analysis to support academic and research objectives but states AI must not replace human expertise, violate data privacy regulations, or bypass legal/compliance requirements
At Emory University, responsible AI use in data analysis refers to the ethical, informed, and secure application of artificial intelligence tools in support of academic, research, business and operational objectives.
However, AI must not replace human expertise in evaluating data, violate data privacy regulations, or bypass legal and compliance requirements.
Use only the minimum data required for your AI tool to produce its results.
De-identification is a required best practice for restricted data use, including when using Emory-approved AI tools.
Do not rely solely on AI analysis for decision-making purposes
Therefore, it is encouraged to review, validate and interpret AI results carefully before drawing conclusion or taking action.
- The provided sources do not include specific rules about AI-generated content in grant proposals or IRB applications beyond these general statements and referrals
- Emory’s Responsible AI site states it will work to prevent and detect academic, research, and funding misconduct involving AI and emphasizes transparency where human oversight is limited
- In data analysis guidance, Emory states AI must not bypass legal and compliance requirements and points users to consult the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for research ethics and regulatory compliance
Prevent and detect potential academic, research, funding, or medical misconduct involving AI
Label AI-generated content and openly communicate use and limitations of AI tools especially when ability or capacity for detailed human review or oversight is limited
However, AI must not replace human expertise in evaluating data, violate data privacy regulations, or bypass legal and compliance requirements.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for research ethics and regulatory compliance
Academic Integrity
- Emory also advises that students must follow faculty instructions regarding AI disclosure and that disclosure may not be necessary for minor stylistic assistance unless required in specific contexts
- For Emory undergraduates, AI-generated content for assignments constitutes plagiarism and an Honor Code violation unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent of AI contribution and outside resources are permitted
- Emory’s Responsible AI disclosure guidance states disclosure should be tailored to context, that AI use should be disclosed in writing in certain scenarios (including substantive AI contribution and lack of human oversight), and that in academic/professional/publication contexts substantive AI involvement in multimedia should be explicitly documented
Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment (including, but not limited to examinations, papers, homework, and creative work) constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent to which an artificial intelligence program contributed to their work and outside resources are permitted for the assignment.
Disclosure protocols should be tailored to the specific context in which the work is produced and disseminated.
Always verify institutional, departmental, journal, or platform-specific policies for disclosure of AI use before publishing or submitting content.
AI use should be disclosed in writing when any of the following apply:
Substantive AI Contribution
In these cases, AI acted beyond a supportive tool and should be acknowledged.
Unless required in specific contexts, disclosure may not be needed when AI is used only for minor or stylistic assistance, such as:
When applicable, cite AI-generated content according to the relevant formal style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago, or AP Style).
In academic, professional, or publication contexts, all substantive AI involvement in the creation or modification of multimedia should be explicitly documented to ensure transparency and uphold integrity.
Educational Contexts: Students must follow faculty instructions regarding AI disclosure, recognizing that permissions may vary by course or assignment.
- The provided sources do not define specific AI detection tools (e.g., Turnitin/GPT detectors) or tool-based enforcement methods
- Emory’s Responsible AI guiding principles include a commitment to prevent and detect potential academic, research, funding, or medical misconduct involving AI
- Emory’s undergraduate Honor Code provides sanctions for academic misconduct and states that violations may lead to penalties up to failure of the course, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or revocation of a degree
Prevent and detect potential academic, research, funding, or medical misconduct involving AI
When the Honor Council has determined that a violation of the Honor Code has occurred, the following is a non-exhaustive list of potential sanctions that may be imposed:
Failure of the course
Suspension from the undergraduate program and/or Emory University for a specified period of time
Dismissal from the undergraduate program
Permanent expulsion from Emory University
Revocation of an Emory University degree that has been previously awarded
Institutional & Administrative
- The guidance also states AI-produced content should be reviewed prior to adoption in organizational settings
- Emory’s Responsible AI writing guidance addresses AI use by staff for institutional documents/communications and instructs staff to consult department leadership, legal counsel, communications/marketing guidelines, and OIT to confirm permissible AI use during drafting or editing
- Emory’s data security guidance specifically addresses sensitive drafting tasks (including letters of recommendation for promotions/appointments), stating users must not enter personally identifiable information into public systems, should use aliases and remove identifying details, and should draft further within secure environments using EASAT-approved tools
Administrative and operational communications: Staff developing institutional documents or communications should consult with department leadership, legal counsel, communications and marketing guidelines, Office of Information Technology (OIT) for secure AI tool use and technical support to confirm permissible use of AI during drafting or editing.
When using AI to assist with sensitive academic writing, such as letters of recommendation for faculty promotions or academic appointments, users must not enter personally identifiable information into public systems.
If AI is used to assist with drafting, individuals should use aliases (e.g., “John Doe”) in place of real names and remove all identifying details.
Any further drafting should occur within secure environments (e.g., EASAT approved tools) and follow institutional policies related to academic communication, confidentiality, and FERPA compliance.
Content produced by AI tools should be reviewed prior to adoption in clinical, administrative or other organizational setting.
- Emory instructs users to protect sensitive information by always using Emory approved AI tools and states only Emory-approved, secure AI technologies (EASAT) may be used when inputting or analyzing Sensitive Information such as Confidential and Restricted data
- Emory defines a broad set of “Sensitive Information” (including PHI, PII, FERPA-protected student information, employee records, research data/results, and other confidential/restricted data) and warns that public-facing AI platforms may collect/retain inputs, creating disclosure risks
- Emory also states that users must confirm legal permission before inputting copyrighted or licensed materials into any AI system (including EASAT), and that users must not upload entire PDFs of third-party licensed content unless explicit permission has been granted; if Sensitive Information is shared with a non-approved AI tool, it should be reported to Information Security and Compliance
Sensitive data refers to any information that can identify individuals or is considered confidential, restricted, or proprietary.
This includes (but is not limited to) electronic Protected Health Information (PHI), Personally Identifiable Information (PII), Individually Identifiable Health Information (IIHI), student information protected by FERPA, proprietary or non-public data such as employee records, intellectual property, copyrighted content, financial and accounting information, business and operational strategies, research results/data, and Confidential/Restricted data as defined by the Emory Disk Encryption Policy.
Public-facing AI platforms (e.g., consumer versions of ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini) often collect and retain user inputs to train their models. Use of these public-facing AI platforms creates risks of inadvertent disclosure of Sensitive Information. To protect sensitive information, always use Emory approved AI tools.
Use only Emory-Approved Secure AI Technology (EASAT)
Only Emory-approved, secure AI technologies (EASAT) may be used when inputting or analyzing Sensitive Information such as Confidential and Restricted data, as defined by the Emory Disk Encryption Policy.
If Sensitive Information is inadvertently shared with a non-approved AI tool, the incident should be reported immediately to the Office of Information Security and the Office of Compliance for risk mitigation, assessment, and remediation.
Before inputting copyrighted or licensed materials, such as journal content, proprietary datasets, or third-party documentation, into any AI system, including EASAT, users must confirm that the intended use is legally permitted.
Therefore, users must not upload entire PDFs of third-party licensed content or other proprietary files into generative AI tools, even for seemingly minor tasks such as paraphrasing or summarization, unless explicit permission has been granted.
The tool enables the secure use of ChatGPT4 with any Emory data except Personal Health Information (PHI) or Individual Health Information (IHI).
- The site also states Emory will update policies/procedures/guidelines where necessary to support responsible AI use
- Emory also states this is an evolving space and that the guidance on the Responsible AI site will grow and change as technology, regulations, scholarship, and experience progress
- Emory states its Responsible AI Guiding Principles are intended to enable ethical and mission-driven AI use and that the principles were developed through multiple rounds of input across the Emory community, with a process that will repeat and expand over time
Emory’s Responsible AI Guiding Principles enable our community to use powerful AI in thoughtful, meaningful, and ethical ways.
It presents Emory’s Responsible AI Guiding Principles, developed through multiple rounds of input from across the Emory community, a process that will repeat, iterate, and expand over time.
This is an evolving space. As the technology, regulations, scholarship, and our own experience progress, Emory’s guidance will grow and change as well. We will continue to listen to our community, learn from our partners, and update this site.
Update our Emory policies, procedures, and guidelines where necessary to aid our people in practicing responsible AI
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 Emory University's AI Policies
Emory University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
For Emory undergraduates, AI-generated content for assignments constitutes plagiarism and an Honor Code violation unless students acknowledge in the assignment the extent of AI contribution and outside resources are permitted. Emory’s Responsible AI disclosure guidance states disclosure should be tailored to context, that AI use should be disclosed in writing in certain scenarios (including substantive AI contribution and lack of human oversight), and that in academic/professional/publication contexts substantive AI involvement in multimedia should be explicitly documented. Emory also advises that students must follow faculty instructions regarding AI disclosure and that disclosure may not be necessary for minor stylistic assistance unless required in specific contexts.
Emory’s Responsible AI guiding principles include a commitment to prevent and detect potential academic, research, funding, or medical misconduct involving AI. Emory’s undergraduate Honor Code provides sanctions for academic misconduct and states that violations may lead to penalties up to failure of the course, suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or revocation of a degree. The provided sources do not define specific AI detection tools (e.g., Turnitin/GPT detectors) or tool-based enforcement methods.
Emory defines a broad set of “Sensitive Information” (including PHI, PII, FERPA-protected student information, employee records, research data/results, and other confidential/restricted data) and warns that public-facing AI platforms may collect/retain inputs, creating disclosure risks. Emory instructs users to protect sensitive information by always using Emory approved AI tools and states only Emory-approved, secure AI technologies (EASAT) may be used when inputting or analyzing Sensitive Information such as Confidential and Restricted data. Emory also states that users must confirm legal permission before inputting copyrighted or licensed materials into any AI system (including EASAT), and that users must not upload entire PDFs of third-party licensed content unless explicit permission has been granted; if Sensitive Information is shared with a non-approved AI tool, it should be reported to Information Security and Compliance.