Teaching & Learning
- For taught coursework, LSE sets a school-level baseline that students must not submit AI-generated work as if it were their own and must follow any course or departmental rules on permitted use
- The 2025-26 position states that allowed use varies by assessment type and convenor guidance, and where AI use is permitted, students remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and proper acknowledgement of their work
Students must not present work generated by AI tools as if it were their own.
The acceptability of GenAI use in assessed work will depend on the learning outcomes being assessed and the instructions provided by course convenors and departments.
Students are responsible for ensuring that any permitted use of GenAI is properly acknowledged and that the submitted work remains their own in substance.
Students remain responsible for the accuracy of any material produced with the assistance of GenAI tools.
- The school position links exam use to assessment design and convenor direction rather than granting a blanket permission
- LSE states that use of generative AI in exams and formal assessments is determined by the specific assessment instructions, with unauthorised use treated under academic misconduct rules
The acceptability of GenAI use in assessed work will depend on the learning outcomes being assessed and the instructions provided by course convenors and departments.
Any use of AI tools that is not explicitly permitted in the assessment guidance may constitute academic misconduct.
Academic misconduct includes submitting work that is not your own, including work generated by artificial intelligence tools, where this is not permitted.
- The student guidance presents AI as something to use carefully for understanding, practice, and productivity rather than as a substitute for independent academic judgment
- LSE permits students to use generative AI as a learning support tool for study and skills development, while warning that outputs can be inaccurate and must be checked critically
Generative AI tools can be useful for brainstorming, summarising, explaining concepts and supporting study, but they can also produce inaccurate or misleading information.
You should treat outputs from generative AI critically and verify them using reliable academic sources.
Use AI as a support for your learning, not as a replacement for your own thinking and engagement with course materials.
- Student-facing guidance also promotes Microsoft Copilot as an available tool, but assessed use still requires compliance with local assessment rules and acknowledgement where required
- LSE does not provide a single blanket rule specifically for coding assignments; use of AI for programming falls under the same assessment-specific permissions that depend on course and convenor instructions
The acceptability of GenAI use in assessed work will depend on the learning outcomes being assessed and the instructions provided by course convenors and departments.
Students are responsible for ensuring that any permitted use of GenAI is properly acknowledged and that the submitted work remains their own in substance.
Copilot can help you generate, explain and refine text and code.
Research
- LSE allows researchers to use generative AI in research writing only with caution, transparency, and human responsibility
- The research guidance states that researchers remain accountable for all content, must verify outputs, and should disclose AI use where it materially contributed to the work; AI tools cannot be credited as authors
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of any work that makes use of generative AI.
Generative AI tools must not be listed as authors of research outputs.
Where generative AI has made a substantive contribution to the production of a research output, this use should be transparently acknowledged.
Outputs produced by generative AI should be carefully checked, validated and, where appropriate, referenced against authoritative sources.
- LSE permits use of generative AI in research data and analysis only with strong caution and researcher oversight
- Researchers must assess methodological suitability, validate outputs, and avoid entering sensitive, personal, confidential, or otherwise restricted data into public tools unless approved safeguards are in place
Researchers should carefully consider whether generative AI tools are appropriate for data analysis, coding, transcription, translation or other research tasks.
Any outputs used in the research process must be validated by the researcher.
Confidential, personal, sensitive or otherwise restricted data should not be entered into public generative AI systems unless appropriate approvals, safeguards and contractual protections are in place.
- LSE ties AI use in research to existing research ethics and integrity obligations
- Researchers must follow ethics review and data governance requirements where AI use affects participants, data handling, or research processes, and they remain personally responsible for integrity, transparency, and compliance
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of any work that makes use of generative AI.
Where the use of generative AI raises ethical issues, researchers should seek advice from the appropriate research ethics process.
All research involving human participants or personal data must comply with the School's research ethics and data protection requirements.
Academic Integrity
- LSE requires transparency when AI use is permitted in assessed academic work and in research outputs that materially use generative AI
- Students must acknowledge permitted use as directed, and researchers should disclose substantive AI contribution; accountability remains with the human author
Students are responsible for ensuring that any permitted use of GenAI is properly acknowledged and that the submitted work remains their own in substance.
Where generative AI has made a substantive contribution to the production of a research output, this use should be transparently acknowledged.
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of any work that makes use of generative AI.
- LSE treats unauthorised AI use as a potential academic misconduct matter and routes enforcement through existing misconduct procedures
- The provided sources explicitly define prohibited submission of AI-generated work where not permitted, but they do not set out a detailed institutional position on AI-detection tools in the cited material
Any use of AI tools that is not explicitly permitted in the assessment guidance may constitute academic misconduct.
Academic misconduct includes submitting work that is not your own, including work generated by artificial intelligence tools, where this is not permitted.
Institutional & Administrative
- Staff remain responsible for outputs, must protect data, and should not rely on AI alone for evaluative or sensitive academic judgments
- LSE allows staff use of AI for work tasks only within policy limits, and it has a specific framework for AI-assisted marking and feedback that requires human oversight and accountability
Staff remain responsible for the content of their work when using artificial intelligence tools.
Do not enter confidential, personal or sensitive information into publicly available AI tools unless you have approval and appropriate safeguards are in place.
AI-assisted marking and feedback must involve meaningful human oversight.
The academic judgement of the marker cannot be delegated to AI.
Staff remain accountable for all grades and feedback issued to students.
- LSE restricts what data may be entered into AI systems and directs staff and students toward approved institutional tools such as Copilot
- The policy prohibits putting confidential, personal, sensitive, or restricted information into public AI tools without approval and safeguards, reflecting a data-protection-first approach to platform choice
Do not enter confidential, personal or sensitive information into publicly available AI tools unless you have approval and appropriate safeguards are in place.
Confidential, personal, sensitive or otherwise restricted data should not be entered into public generative AI systems unless appropriate approvals, safeguards and contractual protections are in place.
Copilot is the School-supported generative AI tool available to LSE staff and students.
- Its published position frames AI adoption around responsible use, academic standards, human accountability, and ongoing review through formal guidance documents
- LSE has an institution-level governance position on generative AI in education and separate guidance for research and staff use, indicating a structured, school-wide approach rather than isolated local rules
This document sets out the School's position on the use of generative artificial intelligence in education for the 2025/26 academic year.
The School's approach is to support responsible and critical engagement with generative AI while protecting academic standards and the integrity of assessment.
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of any work that makes use of generative AI.
Staff remain responsible for the content of their work when using artificial intelligence 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 London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)'s AI Policies
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
LSE requires transparency when AI use is permitted in assessed academic work and in research outputs that materially use generative AI. Students must acknowledge permitted use as directed, and researchers should disclose substantive AI contribution; accountability remains with the human author.
LSE treats unauthorised AI use as a potential academic misconduct matter and routes enforcement through existing misconduct procedures. The provided sources explicitly define prohibited submission of AI-generated work where not permitted, but they do not set out a detailed institutional position on AI-detection tools in the cited material.
LSE restricts what data may be entered into AI systems and directs staff and students toward approved institutional tools such as Copilot. The policy prohibits putting confidential, personal, sensitive, or restricted information into public AI tools without approval and safeguards, reflecting a data-protection-first approach to platform choice.