Teaching & Learning
- UCI treats AI-generated work submitted for course credit as an academic integrity issue when it violates an instructor’s standards and/or is submitted without proper citation/attribution
- The university states that, unless otherwise specified by the instructor, course submissions must be the student’s original work or must appropriately acknowledge the source; UCI explicitly lists using work created by ChatGPT without appropriate citation and representing AI-produced text as one’s own writing as examples of plagiarism
“All Students have the responsibility to become familiar with and abide by the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure for Resolution of Cases of Academic Integrity Violations and are expected to complete any and all course requirements in compliance with the Instructor’s standards. No Student shall engage in Academic Integrity Policy Violations.”
“Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use of the work of another or an entity (including words, ideas, designs, or data) without giving appropriate citation and/or attribution.”
“Unless otherwise specified by the Instructor, all submissions to meet course requirements (including a paper, project, exam, computer program, oral presentation, or other work) must either be the Student’s own original work or appropriately acknowledge the source.”
“Using work created by ChatGPT and failing to include appropriate citation.”
“Representing artificially-produced text as if it were your own language in writing.”
- UCI defines cheating to include using unauthorized aids during an exam or quiz
- The policy does not specifically name generative AI for exams, but it states students must follow the expressed procedures or instructions for an academic course and prohibits unauthorized materials during examinations or quizzes
“Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the use of unauthorized materials, information, or aids in any academic exercise or coursework; dishonest or unfair acts to gain academic advantage; or the failure to observe the expressed procedures or instructions for an academic course.”
“Using unauthorized materials, prepared answers, notes, or other information during an examination or quiz.”
- UCI provides institutionally supported generative AI services intended to support learning (including grasping course materials and preparing for exams)
- The cited sources describe these tools as being used to help students learn and prepare, but they do not set a universal rule about when student use is allowed versus prohibited for non-graded study purposes
“ClassChat is a faculty-driven tool to enhance classroom engagement, help students grasp course materials, prepare for exams, and complete assignments efficiently.”
- The provided sources do not define specific permissions or prohibitions for using AI code-generation tools on programming assignments beyond these general academic integrity requirements
- UCI’s academic integrity policy explicitly includes computer programs among submissions that must be original student work or must appropriately acknowledge sources, unless otherwise specified by the instructor
“Unless otherwise specified by the Instructor, all submissions to meet course requirements (including a paper, project, exam, computer program, oral presentation, or other work) must either be the Student’s own original work or appropriately acknowledge the source.”
Research
- UCI’s human-subject research AI guidance addresses legal considerations and best practices and notes that AI can be used for consent translations with a required human verification step
- The provided sources do not define a general campus rule for using generative AI to draft or edit research manuscripts outside the context of human subject research considerations described in the guidance
“The purpose of this guidance is to share current legal considerations, as well as best practices when conducting human subject research at UCI.”
“When AI is used for consent translations, AI translation must be verified via a human translator whose qualifications align with HRP-090 SOP - Informed Consent Process for Research”
- UCI’s guidance for AI in human subject research flags the use, storage, and sharing of identifiable information and notes that de-identification is more difficult with AI
- It also states that any content provided to AI tools can be saved and reused and frames AI as a third-party vendor, indicating data security and contractual considerations when providing data to AI tools
“Note the below red flags which will require additional engagement with UCI research partners to help protect human subjects.”
“Use, storage, sharing, selling of identifiable information about UC Student Employees, Research Subjects, Patients, including Protected Health Information (PHI).”
“De-identification is more difficult with AI; Anonymized data or aggregated data sets could be appropriate.”
“AI should be considered as a third-party vendor.”
“Any content provided to AI tools can be saved and reused by the tool – and their affiliates.”
- The guidance states that relevant security policies must be followed when providing personal information, and it includes requirements for procurement review when using AI outside UCI’s contracted options
- For research involving human subjects, UCI provides AI-related guidance emphasizing legal considerations, privacy/confidentiality, and required engagement with institutional partners when specific “red flags” are present
“The purpose of this guidance is to share current legal considerations, as well as best practices when conducting human subject research at UCI. Please consider the following before submitting a human subject research protocol.”
“Note the below red flags which will require additional engagement with UCI research partners to help protect human subjects.”
“When providing personal information, including protected health information, UC’s Electronic Information Security Policy (IS-3), along with local UC data security policies for researchers, must be followed.”
“Please note that UCI already offers a selection of contracted AI services.”
“If intending to use AI outside of these available options, please ask for Procurement to review and execute all agreements or contracts with AI vendors.”
Academic Integrity
- UCI requires appropriate citation/attribution when using the work of another entity, explicitly including generative AI, and frames failure to cite AI-produced work as plagiarism
- The policy also states that (unless otherwise specified by the instructor) submissions must be original work or appropriately acknowledge the source, and it provides an explicit example referencing ChatGPT and appropriate citation
“Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use of the work of another or an entity (including words, ideas, designs, or data) without giving appropriate citation and/or attribution.”
“Unless otherwise specified by the Instructor, all submissions to meet course requirements (including a paper, project, exam, computer program, oral presentation, or other work) must either be the Student’s own original work or appropriately acknowledge the source.”
“Using work created by ChatGPT and failing to include appropriate citation.”
- UCI states that Turnitin’s AI detection feature will not be made available at UCI and that the responsible committee is not endorsing any AI detection tools at this time
- For enforcement of academic integrity allegations, UCI notes that the academic integrity policy requires use of a preponderance of the evidence and emphasizes the importance of documentation supporting allegations
“In April of 2023, Turnitin updated their similarity detection tool to optionally allow institutions to also have it scan for AI-generated text.”
“the UCI Integrity in Academics Advisory Committee, acting under a charge from Vice Provost of Teaching and Learning Michael Dennin and Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Willie L. Banks Jr., has examined the AI detection feature of Turnitin feature and its fitness for UCI and at this time has determined that it will not be made available to UCI.”
“More broadly, this group is not endorsing any AI detection tools at this time.”
“UCI Academic Senate Policy on Academic Integrity requires the use of preponderance of the evidence in determining whether there was an Academic Integrity Policy Violation justifying Administrative Sanctions. Therefore, documentation/information supporting the allegation is crucial to the processing of these reports.”
Institutional & Administrative
- UCI provides AI services intended for faculty and staff use, including tools for creating course chatbots and customized AI chatbots trained on knowledge they provide
- The provided sources describe these faculty/staff tools and their purposes, but they do not define a campus-wide policy on using AI for grading, feedback, or other instructional personnel activities
“ClassChat is built on top of ZotGPT to allow for the creation of curated chatbots for educational purposes. ClassChat is designed to be used by faculty to create chatbots for their classes, providing students with a conversational interface to interact with the course material.”
“Faculty and staff can create custom chatbots trained on the knowledge they provide.”
“ZotGPT Creator is a platform that allows faculty, staff, and researchers to create customized AI chatbots for administrative tasks, research projects, and other applications.”
- UCI warns that information submitted to AI chatbots may be retained by third parties and used for training and future responses, and it instructs users to balance utility with security and privacy risks
- UCI prefers “contracted and supported services” and states that external AI tools do not have campus safeguards and should not be used with campus data; it also references UCI information protection levels and states that duplicate copies of P4 data should never be made by default for these services
“We must balance the utility of AI chatbot services with inherent risks to information security and privacy. Not only does a third-party (those running the chatbot) have a copy of the information that is submitted, but also the AI large language model may be further trained on that information. Data submitted may be used in future responses to others using the AI chatbot.”
“Using UCI contracted and supported services are always preferred.”
“Duplicate copies of P4 data should never be made unless there is a very strong business reason for it, so by default it not acceptable for any of these services, however if you have a strong business reason contact securityrisk@uci.edu to discuss.”
“All AI models under the ZotGPT umbrella have campus contracts in place. External AI tools do not have these safeguards. Do not use them with campus data.”
“If you are using Copilot or Gemini, make sure you are logged in with your UCI credentials to protect campus data.”
- UCI information security guidance also references a UC-level AI report (UC Presidential Working Group on AI) as covering ethical and responsible use topics that are not covered in that specific security guidance
- UCI states that its Integrity in Academics Advisory Committee provides guidance on academic integrity policy/procedures and on technologies, tools, and resources, and the committee evaluated Turnitin’s AI detection feature for UCI
“The UCI Integrity in Academics Advisory Committee, acting under a charge from Vice Provost of Teaching and Learning Michael Dennin and Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Willie L. Banks Jr., has examined the AI detection feature of Turnitin feature and its fitness for UCI”
“Communication with, and providing guidance to, the campus community (Faculty, Staff, other stakeholders)”
“Academic integrity policy and procedures”
“Technologies, tools, and resources”
“Ethical issues and the responsible use of AI aren’t covered here, but is part of the UC Presidential Working Group on AI report”
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 California, Irvine's AI Policies
University of California, Irvine has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
UCI requires appropriate citation/attribution when using the work of another entity, explicitly including generative AI, and frames failure to cite AI-produced work as plagiarism. The policy also states that (unless otherwise specified by the instructor) submissions must be original work or appropriately acknowledge the source, and it provides an explicit example referencing ChatGPT and appropriate citation.
UCI states that Turnitin’s AI detection feature will not be made available at UCI and that the responsible committee is not endorsing any AI detection tools at this time. For enforcement of academic integrity allegations, UCI notes that the academic integrity policy requires use of a preponderance of the evidence and emphasizes the importance of documentation supporting allegations.
UCI warns that information submitted to AI chatbots may be retained by third parties and used for training and future responses, and it instructs users to balance utility with security and privacy risks. UCI prefers “contracted and supported services” and states that external AI tools do not have campus safeguards and should not be used with campus data; it also references UCI information protection levels and states that duplicate copies of P4 data should never be made by default for these services.