Teaching & Learning
- For coursework and other graded academic work, the university directs students to follow instructor guidance on AI use
- AI use is not uniformly permitted; if it is inappropriate, unethical, or not specifically authorized by the instructor, it is treated under the Code of Student Conduct as cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, unauthorized collaboration, misrepresentation, and/or gaining an unfair advantage
AI tools (such as ChatGPT) are powerful tools that can be used to aid in the learning process. Students should look to their instructors for guidance on the fair and ethical use of AI tools for this course. The inappropriate or unethical use of such technologies will violate the Code of Student Conduct as cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, unauthorized collaboration, misrepresentation, and/or gaining an unfair advantage.
Cheating: the use, attempt to use, or possession of any aid, information, resources, or other means in the completion of any academic assignment, where use of such material is not specifically permitted or authorized by the instructor, or providing such material to another student.
Plagiarism: presenting as one’s own work the ideas, representations, or words of another individual/source without proper attribution.
Unauthorized Collaboration: unauthorized collaboration with another in any phase of, or in the completion of, an individual academic assignment, without the express permission of the instructor to complete any assignment in that manner.
- Testing Services also states that cheating, plagiarism, or assisting another examinee are academic misconduct under university and testing-company standards
- For exams and assessments, the university frames unauthorized assistance or materials as academic misconduct and provides faculty best practices for requiring an integrity affirmation at the start of exams
Incorporate an academic integrity statement at the beginning of exams that students must re-type or accept. (i.e, “I affirm that I have followed the University of Akron’s Student Code of Conduct and have neither given nor received assistance during this exam.”)
Testing Services at The University of Akron adheres to academic integrity standards of the university and testing companies. Academic misconduct includes cheating, plagiarism, or assisting another examinee in either.
Cheating: the use, attempt to use, or possession of any aid, information, resources, or other means in the completion of any academic assignment, where use of such material is not specifically permitted or authorized by the instructor, or providing such material to another student. This includes, but is not limited to: possessing, referring to, or otherwise using unauthorized books, notes, crib/cheat sheets, etc.
possessing, using, or referring to any unauthorized electronic devices or other materials during completion of any academic assignment;
- Beyond that course-level direction, no separate university-wide rule specifically governs AI for personal study assistance
- The university states that AI tools can be used to support learning, but students must follow instructor guidance on fair and ethical use in a course
AI tools (such as ChatGPT) are powerful tools that can be used to aid in the learning process. Students should look to their instructors for guidance on the fair and ethical use of AI tools for this course.
Research
- The university does not state an AI-specific rule for using AI to draft or edit research papers, theses, dissertations, or manuscripts
- It does, however, apply its scholarly misconduct policy to publicly disseminated research or scholarship and treats plagiarism and related misconduct as unacceptable
The scholarly misconduct policy governs any type of research or scholarship that is publicly disseminated, either by presentation (formal or informal) or publication.
Scholarly misconduct includes:
(a) Plagiarism.
(b) Falsification of discovery.
(c) Theft of another's discoveries, scholarly work, or creations.
- The university does not provide an AI-specific rule for using AI in research data collection, analysis, or interpretation
- Its research misconduct policy does prohibit falsification of data and requires ethical conduct in research, and its IRB materials require certification and listing of personnel interacting with human subjects or identifiable data
While encouraging freedom of inquiry, the university of Akron is committed to the scientific method and the ethical conduct of research.
Scholarly misconduct includes:
(e) Falsification of data.
All personnel interacting with human subjects or identifiable data should be listed as some category of study personnel.
The following study personnel must certify the protocol before the IRB receives it for review:
* PI
* Co-PI/Co-Is
* Faculty advisors for projects where the PI is a student
- The university does not set an AI-specific rule for AI-generated content in grant proposals or IRB applications
- It does maintain a university-wide scholarly misconduct policy for research and scholarship, allows investigations of alleged misconduct with possible discipline up to dismissal, and requires protocol certification before IRB review
While encouraging freedom of inquiry, the university of Akron is committed to the scientific method and the ethical conduct of research. Scholarly misconduct by employees, visiting scholars, or students in research and scholarship broadly construed as applying to scientific experimentation, artistic expression, and all other areas of scholarship in any disciplines not in the spirit of the mission of the university and therefore is not acceptable.
Investigations of alleged scholarly misconduct are conducted within the scope of the law and limited to the discovery of information that would support or refute the allegation. Adverse findings may provide grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the university.
Submissions are received by the IRB after all key personnel (PI, Co-PIs, Faculty advisor) have CERTIFIED the Submission.
The following study personnel must certify the protocol before the IRB receives it for review:
* PI
* Co-PI/Co-Is
* Faculty advisors for projects where the PI is a student
Academic Integrity
- Whether AI use must be disclosed in coursework is effectively governed by instructor authorization and the general prohibition on plagiarism and misrepresentation
- The university requires proper attribution when work includes others' ideas, representations, or words, but it does not set a specific AI disclosure or citation format in the provided sources
Plagiarism: presenting as one’s own work the ideas, representations, or words of another individual/source without proper attribution.
Examples include, but are not limited to, submitting material that in whole or in part is not entirely one’s own work, without accurate and appropriate citation and/or attribution (including the use of quotation marks); using the words, ideas, or structure/sequence of another individual or source without proper and appropriate citation and attribution (including the use of quotation marks).
Cheating: the use, attempt to use, or possession of any aid, information, resources, or other means in the completion of any academic assignment, where use of such material is not specifically permitted or authorized by the instructor, or providing such material to another student.
- The university does not state a position on AI detection tools in the provided sources
- It does state that alleged academic misconduct is resolved through the academic misconduct procedure in the Code of Student Conduct, and research-related scholarly misconduct can lead to disciplinary action up to dismissal
Allegations of academic misconduct will be resolved following the academic misconduct procedure outlined in the Code of Student Conduct.
Investigations of alleged scholarly misconduct are conducted within the scope of the law and limited to the discovery of information that would support or refute the allegation. Adverse findings may provide grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the university.
Institutional & Administrative
- The only relevant AI statement is a syllabus statement telling students to look to instructors for guidance on fair and ethical AI use in a course
- The provided sources do not set an AI-specific policy for faculty or staff uses such as grading, feedback, lesson planning, recommendation letters, or administrative communication
Students should look to their instructors for guidance on the fair and ethical use of AI tools for this course.
- The university does not identify approved AI platforms in the provided sources
- It does require all university IT users to protect sensitive and confidential information, comply with privacy and security rules, and avoid unauthorized copying of confidential or sensitive data
The university is covered by several federal and state laws and regulations regarding information privacy and security and is committed to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all such sensitive and confidential information, including, but not limited to, protected health information and customer information.
Therefore, effective "IT" security is the responsibility of every university "IT" user, and every "IT" user is responsible for knowing the rules related to access and acceptable use, privacy, and security.
Unauthorized copying of confidential or sensitive data without the permission of the information technology security officer.
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 University of Akron's AI Policies
University of Akron has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
The university requires proper attribution when work includes others' ideas, representations, or words, but it does not set a specific AI disclosure or citation format in the provided sources. Whether AI use must be disclosed in coursework is effectively governed by instructor authorization and the general prohibition on plagiarism and misrepresentation.
The university does not state a position on AI detection tools in the provided sources. It does state that alleged academic misconduct is resolved through the academic misconduct procedure in the Code of Student Conduct, and research-related scholarly misconduct can lead to disciplinary action up to dismissal.
The university does not identify approved AI platforms in the provided sources. It does require all university IT users to protect sensitive and confidential information, comply with privacy and security rules, and avoid unauthorized copying of confidential or sensitive data.