Teaching & Learning
- Students may use AI only where the assessment brief or module guidance explicitly allows it, and unauthorized use can be treated as academic misconduct
- The university also states that students remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of any submitted work and should not submit AI output as their own
- For taught coursework, use of generative AI is not uniformly permitted or prohibited across the university; it depends on the assessment design and the module or programme guidance
Students need to be clear on the type of assessment they are undertaking. AI and GenAI in assessments should be signalled by the module convenor in module handbooks and briefings.
Where AI and GenAI are not permitted, such use may amount to plagiarism, collusion, or some other form of academic misconduct, and will be considered under Queen Mary’s Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy.
For all AI tools there should be a clear statement indicating whether use of AI and GenAI is permitted, why and how.
QMUL Regulations require all students to explicitly declare use of AI and GenAI.
If you use AI generated text, code, or images in your submission, you remain accountable for the accuracy and appropriate use of that content.
As a student, you should not use GenAI to write your assignment for you and submit it as your own work.
The use of AI and GenAI in assessments is not a single university policy because each module and programme has different learning outcomes and methods of assessment.
Module and programme teams are expected to communicate to students which kinds of use of AI and GenAI are permitted in each assessment, and which kinds are not.
Students should only use AI and GenAI if the assessment brief allows it. If there is no mention, they should seek clarification from their module convenor or supervisor.
Unauthorised use of AI and GenAI tools in assessments may constitute academic misconduct, depending on the nature of the assessment and how the tools were used.
- Students must declare AI use when it is used in assessed work
- Assessment information should explicitly state whether AI is allowed, why, and how; if AI is not permitted, use of it may be treated as academic misconduct
- For assessments, including exams and other formal assessments, AI use is determined at module or programme level rather than by a single university-wide permission rule
Students need to be clear on the type of assessment they are undertaking. AI and GenAI in assessments should be signalled by the module convenor in module handbooks and briefings.
Where AI and GenAI are not permitted, such use may amount to plagiarism, collusion, or some other form of academic misconduct, and will be considered under Queen Mary’s Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy.
For all AI tools there should be a clear statement indicating whether use of AI and GenAI is permitted, why and how.
QMUL Regulations require all students to explicitly declare use of AI and GenAI.
The use of AI and GenAI in assessments is not a single university policy because each module and programme has different learning outcomes and methods of assessment.
Assessment information and briefs should specify whether and how AI and GenAI may be used.
If AI use is not allowed, using it may be treated as academic misconduct under Queen Mary policy.
- The guidance encourages using AI to support learning while avoiding direct submission of AI-produced work as one's own
- Students are warned to evaluate outputs critically because AI can be inaccurate or biased, and they remain responsible for how they use the material
- The university allows students to use AI as a learning support tool for idea generation, explanation, and study support, but frames this as assistance rather than a substitute for their own work
AI can be useful for brainstorming, generating ideas, explaining concepts, and giving feedback on drafts.
AI can make mistakes, invent references, and reflect bias.
You should think critically about any AI output and check it carefully.
As a student, you should not use GenAI to write your assignment for you and submit it as your own work.
If you use AI generated text, code, or images in your submission, you remain accountable for the accuracy and appropriate use of that content.
- The university explicitly includes code among AI-generated content for which students retain responsibility
- Students must declare AI use, remain accountable for submitted code, and unauthorized use in assessments may be treated as academic misconduct
- For student coding work, the university does not set a blanket university-wide permission rule; use of AI-generated code depends on the assessment brief or module guidance
If you use AI generated text, code, or images in your submission, you remain accountable for the accuracy and appropriate use of that content.
QMUL Regulations require all students to explicitly declare use of AI and GenAI.
Students should only use AI and GenAI if the assessment brief allows it. If there is no mention, they should seek clarification from their module convenor or supervisor.
Unauthorised use of AI and GenAI tools in assessments may constitute academic misconduct, depending on the nature of the assessment and how the tools were used.
Research
- AI tools cannot be credited as authors, and researchers remain responsible for the final content
- For postgraduate researchers, the university warns that thesis or written work requirements may differ by school or supervisor, so local guidance must be checked
- For research writing, Queen Mary permits AI tools to assist with drafting or language support only if researchers use them transparently, verify outputs, and comply with publisher, funder, and disciplinary requirements
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality and attribution of all content in manuscripts, reports, theses and other outputs, regardless of whether AI tools have been used.
AI tools should not be listed as authors.
You should check funder, publisher, journal, disciplinary and supervisory requirements before using AI tools in writing.
Any use of AI in the preparation of written research outputs should be acknowledged where required by the relevant publisher, funder, school or supervisor.
PGRs should check local guidance from their School/Institute and supervisors on whether and how AI tools may be used in thesis writing and related academic work.
You are responsible for any text you submit, even if it was generated or edited using AI.
Do not assume that use of AI in written work is automatically permitted; requirements may vary by context.
- The university emphasizes that researchers remain responsible for the quality and integrity of analytical work produced with AI assistance
- In research data and analysis, AI use is allowed only with careful human oversight and subject to research governance and data protection requirements
- Researchers are expected to validate outputs, assess bias and reliability, and ensure that confidential, personal, or sensitive data are not entered into public AI systems unless formally approved
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality and attribution of all content in manuscripts, reports, theses and other outputs, regardless of whether AI tools have been used.
Outputs from AI tools must be checked carefully for accuracy, bias, fabrication and appropriateness.
Researchers must not upload confidential, personal, commercially sensitive or otherwise restricted data into publicly accessible AI tools unless appropriate approvals, safeguards and legal bases are in place.
Use of AI in research must comply with data protection, confidentiality, contractual and ethical obligations.
You should consider the provenance, reliability and limitations of AI-generated outputs before using them in analysis or interpretation.
- Queen Mary requires AI use in research to comply with research integrity, ethics, confidentiality, and legal obligations
- The guidance also restricts inputting sensitive research information into public AI systems without appropriate approval and safeguards
- Researchers must not delegate responsibility for ethical or scholarly judgment to AI tools, and they must disclose AI use where required by funders, publishers, supervisors, or other governance processes
Use of AI in research must comply with data protection, confidentiality, contractual and ethical obligations.
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality and attribution of all content in manuscripts, reports, theses and other outputs, regardless of whether AI tools have been used.
Researchers must not upload confidential, personal, commercially sensitive or otherwise restricted data into publicly accessible AI tools unless appropriate approvals, safeguards and legal bases are in place.
Any use of AI in the preparation of written research outputs should be acknowledged where required by the relevant publisher, funder, school or supervisor.
PGRs should check local guidance from their School/Institute and supervisors on whether and how AI tools may be used in thesis writing and related academic work.
Academic Integrity
- The university requires students to explicitly declare use of AI and generative AI in assessed work
- In both teaching and research contexts, the user remains responsible for the content even when AI assistance has been used
- It also expects acknowledgment of AI use in research writing where required by publishers, funders, schools, or supervisors
QMUL Regulations require all students to explicitly declare use of AI and GenAI.
For all AI tools there should be a clear statement indicating whether use of AI and GenAI is permitted, why and how.
Any use of AI in the preparation of written research outputs should be acknowledged where required by the relevant publisher, funder, school or supervisor.
Researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality and attribution of all content in manuscripts, reports, theses and other outputs, regardless of whether AI tools have been used.
- Enforcement is therefore defined through misconduct procedures rather than a detailed detection-tool policy in the supplied texts
- Queen Mary states that unauthorized AI use in assessments may be handled as academic misconduct under its academic integrity procedures
- The policy links prohibited AI use to plagiarism, collusion, or other misconduct categories, but the provided sources do not define a university-wide position on specific AI detection tools
Where AI and GenAI are not permitted, such use may amount to plagiarism, collusion, or some other form of academic misconduct, and will be considered under Queen Mary’s Academic Integrity & Misconduct Policy.
Unauthorised use of AI and GenAI tools in assessments may constitute academic misconduct, depending on the nature of the assessment and how the tools were used.
Institutional & Administrative
- Staff are advised to design assessments intentionally in relation to AI and to provide explicit guidance in briefs and module materials
- The supplied sources do not provide a detailed university-wide rule on staff use of AI for grading, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
- For educators, Queen Mary permits use of AI in teaching and assessment design but expects clear communication to students about whether AI is allowed in each assessment and on what terms
AI and GenAI in assessments should be signalled by the module convenor in module handbooks and briefings.
For all AI tools there should be a clear statement indicating whether use of AI and GenAI is permitted, why and how.
Assessment information and briefs should specify whether and how AI and GenAI may be used.
Module and programme teams are expected to communicate to students which kinds of use of AI and GenAI are permitted in each assessment, and which kinds are not.
- The provided sources do not identify a university-wide list of approved AI platforms
- This establishes a clear data protection condition on AI use, particularly in research contexts
- The university prohibits entering confidential, personal, commercially sensitive, or otherwise restricted research data into publicly accessible AI tools unless appropriate approvals, safeguards, and legal bases are in place
Researchers must not upload confidential, personal, commercially sensitive or otherwise restricted data into publicly accessible AI tools unless appropriate approvals, safeguards and legal bases are in place.
Use of AI in research must comply with data protection, confidentiality, contractual and ethical obligations.
- A distinct overarching AI strategy, committee structure, or adoption roadmap is not defined in the provided sources
- The provided materials show governance through local assessment rules, academic integrity procedures, and research compliance requirements
- Queen Mary has institution-level guidance that frames AI use through assessment design principles, research integrity expectations, and student guidance rather than a single unified university AI strategy in the supplied texts
The use of AI and GenAI in assessments is not a single university policy because each module and programme has different learning outcomes and methods of assessment.
Use of AI in research must comply with data protection, confidentiality, contractual and ethical obligations.
QMUL Regulations require all students to explicitly declare use of AI and GenAI.
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 Queen Mary, University of London's AI Policies
Queen Mary, University of London has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university requires students to explicitly declare use of AI and generative AI in assessed work. It also expects acknowledgment of AI use in research writing where required by publishers, funders, schools, or supervisors. In both teaching and research contexts, the user remains responsible for the content even when AI assistance has been used.
Queen Mary states that unauthorized AI use in assessments may be handled as academic misconduct under its academic integrity procedures. The policy links prohibited AI use to plagiarism, collusion, or other misconduct categories, but the provided sources do not define a university-wide position on specific AI detection tools. Enforcement is therefore defined through misconduct procedures rather than a detailed detection-tool policy in the supplied texts.
The university prohibits entering confidential, personal, commercially sensitive, or otherwise restricted research data into publicly accessible AI tools unless appropriate approvals, safeguards, and legal bases are in place. This establishes a clear data protection condition on AI use, particularly in research contexts. The provided sources do not identify a university-wide list of approved AI platforms.