Teaching & Learning
- The university encourages instructors to clearly communicate expectations for student AI use and provides optional syllabus language and guidance for crafting course policies
- The university positions student use of generative AI for graded coursework as governed by academic integrity expectations and course-specific direction: students must follow instructor/syllabus rules, and submitting work that is not the student’s own (including unauthorized AI-generated work) may be treated as academic misconduct
Instructors are advised to “be clear about when and how students may use generative AI, and when they may not.”
“Students are responsible for knowing and following the standards of academic conduct established by their instructors and the university.”
“Academic misconduct is defined as any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the university, or subvert the educational process.”
“Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to: … Submitting plagiarized work for academic credit.”
“Plagiarism is the representation of another’s works or ideas as one’s own; it includes the unacknowledged word-for-word use and/or paraphrasing of another person’s work, and/or the inappropriate unacknowledged use of another person’s ideas.”
- Violations that compromise academic integrity may be processed as academic misconduct under established procedures
- The university does not define a single uniform rule for AI tool use during exams and assessments in the provided sources; instead, it emphasizes that assessment rules are set by instructors and that students must follow those standards
“Students are responsible for knowing and following the standards of academic conduct established by their instructors and the university.”
“Academic misconduct is defined as any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the university, or subvert the educational process.”
- It directs students to follow course guidance and emphasizes responsible, appropriate use rather than establishing a universal permission statement for study-only use
- The university provides general guidance that AI tools can support learning and skill-building (AI fluency) and encourages responsible use, but it ties permissibility for student work to instructor expectations and academic integrity standards
“Ohio State is committed to ensuring that all students, faculty and staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to use AI responsibly and effectively.”
“Students are responsible for knowing and following the standards of academic conduct established by their instructors and the university.”
Instructors are advised to “be clear about when and how students may use generative AI, and when they may not.”
- If AI-generated code is used in a way that violates instructor rules or constitutes representing others’ work as one’s own, it may be treated as academic misconduct
- The university does not set a single, university-wide rule in the provided sources specifically for AI-assisted code generation in programming assignments; instead, it indicates instructors should define when AI is allowed and students must follow those standards
Instructors are advised to “be clear about when and how students may use generative AI, and when they may not.”
“Students are responsible for knowing and following the standards of academic conduct established by their instructors and the university.”
“Plagiarism is the representation of another’s works or ideas as one’s own; it includes the unacknowledged word-for-word use and/or paraphrasing of another person’s work, and/or the inappropriate unacknowledged use of another person’s ideas.”
Research
- Not defined
not defined
- This applies to research data and analysis insofar as those activities involve university data covered by the institutional data policy and AI security/privacy guidance
- The university’s institutional guidance focuses on security/privacy and institutional data handling when using AI tools; it warns against entering sensitive or restricted university data into public AI systems and directs users to use secure/approved AI tools where applicable
“Do not enter sensitive university data into public generative AI tools.”
“Ohio State’s Institutional Data Policy classifies university data and defines requirements for handling and sharing data based on its classification.”
“Visit Ohio State’s AI site to find secure, approved AI tools.”
- Not defined
not defined
Academic Integrity
- Instead, the university indicates that students must follow instructor-established standards, and it encourages instructors to clearly state expectations for AI use in course policies/syllabi
- The university’s academic integrity materials define plagiarism and require that others’ work/ideas not be represented as one’s own; however, the provided sources do not establish a single, university-wide AI-specific disclosure/citation requirement for student submissions
“Plagiarism is the representation of another’s works or ideas as one’s own; it includes the unacknowledged word-for-word use and/or paraphrasing of another person’s work, and/or the inappropriate unacknowledged use of another person’s ideas.”
“Students are responsible for knowing and following the standards of academic conduct established by their instructors and the university.”
Instructors are advised to “be clear about when and how students may use generative AI, and when they may not.”
- Enforcement is framed through the academic misconduct process for activities that compromise academic integrity, with examples including plagiarism
- The university provides a formal academic misconduct definition and indicates that alleged violations are handled through established misconduct processes; the provided sources do not define an AI-specific detection-tool mandate
“Academic misconduct is defined as any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the university, or subvert the educational process.”
“Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to: … Submitting plagiarized work for academic credit.”
Institutional & Administrative
- The university provides faculty-facing guidance on considering AI in teaching and encourages instructors to set clear rules for student AI use through course policies/syllabi
- For faculty and staff use of AI tools more broadly, the university emphasizes responsible use and directs users to security/privacy guidance and to secure/approved AI tools when handling university data
Instructors are advised to “be clear about when and how students may use generative AI, and when they may not.”
“Visit Ohio State’s AI site to find secure, approved AI tools.”
“Do not enter sensitive university data into public generative AI tools.”
- The university also maintains a central AI site that points users to secure, approved AI tools and provides an approved-tools listing/quick reference
- Ohio State provides security and privacy guidance for AI tool use that restricts entering sensitive university data into public generative AI tools and ties requirements to the university’s institutional data classifications
“Do not enter sensitive university data into public generative AI tools.”
“Ohio State’s Institutional Data Policy classifies university data and defines requirements for handling and sharing data based on its classification.”
“Visit Ohio State’s AI site to find secure, approved AI tools.”
- Ohio State describes an institution-level commitment to AI fluency and maintains a central AI website that organizes university resources, learning materials, and approved tool guidance
- In the provided sources, this functions as the primary articulated institutional strategy element, centered on responsible use, education/fluency, and providing approved tools rather than a detailed governance charter in a single policy document
“Ohio State is committed to ensuring that all students, faculty and staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to use AI responsibly and effectively.”
“Visit Ohio State’s AI site to find secure, approved AI 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 Ohio State University's AI Policies
Ohio State University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university’s academic integrity materials define plagiarism and require that others’ work/ideas not be represented as one’s own; however, the provided sources do not establish a single, university-wide AI-specific disclosure/citation requirement for student submissions. Instead, the university indicates that students must follow instructor-established standards, and it encourages instructors to clearly state expectations for AI use in course policies/syllabi.
The university provides a formal academic misconduct definition and indicates that alleged violations are handled through established misconduct processes; the provided sources do not define an AI-specific detection-tool mandate. Enforcement is framed through the academic misconduct process for activities that compromise academic integrity, with examples including plagiarism.
Ohio State provides security and privacy guidance for AI tool use that restricts entering sensitive university data into public generative AI tools and ties requirements to the university’s institutional data classifications. The university also maintains a central AI site that points users to secure, approved AI tools and provides an approved-tools listing/quick reference.