Teaching & Learning
- The university states that some courses may impose further restrictions and students must check course guidance
- Use of generative AI in coursework is permitted only within university-level restrictions and any additional course-level rules
- Submitting AI-generated work, or part of it, as if it were the student's own work is prohibited and treated as academic misconduct
The University trusts you to act with integrity in your use of generative AI for your studies.
It does not ban the use of generative AI, though its use is restricted for assessment.
Some of your courses may also restrict its use in other ways. Always check your course level guidance.
These top-level guidelines provide clarity on which uses of generative AI are strictly prohibited and constitute academic misconduct
30.4 Students need to be careful when using Generative AI tools. The use of Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or others) to generate an assignment (or part of an assignment) and submit this as if were one’s own work will be regarded as academic misconduct and treated as such. Programme and/or course handbooks will provide additional guidance in cases where AI tools might form part of an assessment task.
- Additional rules may be set at programme or course level for assessments where AI could form part of the task
- The university restricts generative AI for assessment and treats using AI to generate assessed work as academic misconduct when submitted as one's own
It does not ban the use of generative AI, though its use is restricted for assessment.
These top-level guidelines provide clarity on which uses of generative AI are strictly prohibited and constitute academic misconduct
30.4 Students need to be careful when using Generative AI tools. The use of Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or others) to generate an assignment (or part of an assignment) and submit this as if were one’s own work will be regarded as academic misconduct and treated as such. Programme and/or course handbooks will provide additional guidance in cases where AI tools might form part of an assessment task.
- It presents responsible AI use as an important skill, but requires students to stay within course-specific limits
- The university permits students to use generative AI in their studies in general, while emphasizing responsible use and warning against over-reliance
General guidance for all students on using generative AI tools in your studies.
The University trusts you to act with integrity in your use of generative AI for your studies.
It does not ban the use of generative AI, though its use is restricted for assessment.
They also explain why you should be cautious about over-reliance on generative AI for your learning.
The University recognises that developing skills in the responsible use of generative AI is important and will likely be significant for your future life and work.
Research
- The university supports responsible staff use of generative AI in research work, with transparency and human verification required
- A school-level research policy in PPLS applies to staff and students engaged in research, including dissertation and thesis projects, but coursework use remains governed by university-wide and course-level rules
The University supports responsible use of generative AI to enhance research, teaching and professional services, aligned with our values.
Be transparent about if/how you used AI. Never claim AI output as your own work. Always verify accuracy and appropriateness.
a) Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI): Refers to machine learning
models that are trained to generate new data (e.g., text, audio, images) based on
existing data. This includes large language models like ChatGPT (and ELM),
Gemini, and LLaMA, text-to-image generators like DALL-E, text-to-video
generators like Sora, large-data-trained automatic speech recognition systems
like Whisper ASR, and AI translation tools like deepL and Lokalise AI.
b) Applicability: This policy applies to all PPLS staff and students involved in
research activities, including those as part of course assignments or
dissertation/thesis projects. The use of GenAI in student coursework/assessment
is subject to the University-wide policy on AI use and course-wise policy set by
the course organiser.
- Research-related AI use is subject to data protection limits and, at least in PPLS, a research-specific policy covering staff and students in research activities
- The university's staff guidance requires protecting confidentiality and personal data, and forbids using ELM with identifiable patient, clinical, or identifiable research participant data
The University supports responsible use of generative AI to enhance research, teaching and professional services, aligned with our values.
Protect copyright, confidentiality and personal data. Assume anything put into third-party tools is shared externally. Do not use ELM with identifiable patient/clinical data or any identifiable research participant data.
Guidance for staff and students on the processing of personal data using Generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT)
Generative Artificial Intelligence stores and learns from data inputted, however AI systems are required by data protection law to process personal data fairly and lawfully. It is not currently always possible to delete data from an LLM neural net. Therefore these systems may not be complaint with relevant law like the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.
b) Applicability: This policy applies to all PPLS staff and students involved in
research activities, including those as part of course assignments or
dissertation/thesis projects.
- It is also developing additional AI-specific ethics and integrity guidance, and annual integrity reporting notes ongoing work on AI-related ethics guidance and policies
- The university requires research to meet high standards of integrity and applies its research misconduct framework to behaviors such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misrepresentation, and failures to meet ethical, legal, and professional obligations
The University of Edinburgh is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity in all aspects of its research.
The University of Edinburgh is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity in all aspects of its research and has adopted the UKK Concordat, and the UKRIO Code of Practice for Research.
The University of Edinburgh Research Misconduct Policy ensures allegations are handled fairly, and in line with the UK Research Integrity Office procedures.
Research misconduct refers to behaviours that violate ethical, legal, or professional standards in research. The University of Edinburgh’s Research Misconduct Policy defines misconduct to include, but not be limited to:
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misrepresentation, breach of duty of care, failure to meet ethical, legal, and professional obligations and improper handling of misconduct allegations.
- fabrication: making up results or other outputs (e.g. artefacts) and presenting them
as if they were real
- falsification: manipulating research processes or changing or omitting data without
good cause
& Integrity and Artificial Intelligence (AI)," will be developed and reviewed by senior
academics and the Research Ethics and Integrity Review Group (REIRG) before its
release to staff and students by summer 2025.
• AI Ethics Publication:
HERC plans to publish “Guidance for Research Ethics Committees and
Researchers on Designing Research in the Age of AI” in January 2025.
Academic Integrity
- In research and staff contexts, AI output must not be claimed as one's own and users must be transparent about whether and how AI was used
- The university requires transparency about AI use for staff, and its student guidance signals that integrity and disclosure matter in academic work
Be transparent about if/how you used AI. Never claim AI output as your own work. Always verify accuracy and appropriateness.
The University trusts you to act with integrity in your use of generative AI for your studies.
30.4 Students need to be careful when using Generative AI tools. The use of Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or others) to generate an assignment (or part of an assignment) and submit this as if were one’s own work will be regarded as academic misconduct and treated as such.
- No explicit position on AI detection tools is defined in the available source text
- Undisclosed submission of AI-generated assignment content as a student's own work is treated as academic misconduct
- Research misconduct allegations are handled under the university's research misconduct procedures, while allegations relating to research undertaken by students are investigated under the Academic Misconduct Investigation Procedure
30.4 Students need to be careful when using Generative AI tools. The use of Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or others) to generate an assignment (or part of an assignment) and submit this as if were one’s own work will be regarded as academic misconduct and treated as such.
Research misconduct refers to behaviours that violate ethical, legal, or professional standards in research. The University of Edinburgh’s Research Misconduct Policy defines misconduct to include, but not be limited to:
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misrepresentation, breach of duty of care, failure to meet ethical, legal, and professional obligations and improper handling of misconduct allegations.
Allegations relating to the research undertaken by University students will be investigated using the Academic Misconduct Investigation Procedure.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university supports responsible generative AI use by staff across research, teaching, and professional services
- It recommends that staff use ELM, requires transparency and human verification, and requires approval processes and impact assessments for systematic or large-scale non-research adoption, including AI in third-party applications or additions to existing platforms
The University supports responsible use of generative AI to enhance research, teaching and professional services, aligned with our values.
Where staff wish to use generative AI to assist in their work, the University’s recommendation is that staff use ELM, the University’s AI platform: it improves data security and ethics, reduces cost, and is supported by IT.
Be transparent about if/how you used AI. Never claim AI output as your own work. Always verify accuracy and appropriateness.
For systematic or large-scale adoption (including AI in third-party apps or the introduction of AI into an existing platform) for non-research activities, follow the approval process via the ISG Ethics Board, and complete required impact assessments.
- The university recommends ELM as its preferred AI platform for staff because of data security and ethics advantages
- Its data protection guidance also warns that generative AI systems may not comply with legal requirements because input data may be retained and not fully deletable
- It requires users to protect copyright, confidentiality, and personal data, warns that third-party tools should be assumed to share inputs externally, and explicitly prohibits use of ELM with identifiable patient, clinical, or identifiable research participant data
Where staff wish to use generative AI to assist in their work, the University’s recommendation is that staff use ELM, the University’s AI platform: it improves data security and ethics, reduces cost, and is supported by IT.
Protect copyright, confidentiality and personal data. Assume anything put into third-party tools is shared externally. Do not use ELM with identifiable patient/clinical data or any identifiable research participant data.
Guidance for staff and students on the processing of personal data using Generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT)
Generative Artificial Intelligence stores and learns from data inputted, however AI systems are required by data protection law to process personal data fairly and lawfully. It is not currently always possible to delete data from an LLM neural net. Therefore these systems may not be complaint with relevant law like the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.
- Annual research integrity reporting also shows ongoing university and school-level work on AI adoption, ethical AI tools, AI risk assessment, and development of further policies and guidance
- The university has an institutional AI strategy and governance structure that includes central guidance, a university AI platform, and approval oversight for non-research AI adoption through the ISG Ethics Board
Artificial Intelligence offers many opportunities and risks for students and staff. Below are some resources to support the University community as it adopts AI into its studies and work.
### AI Adoption Hub
Learn more about the group's work in exploring what AI means for work within the University, how to engage with them, and see the latest guidance. [University log in required]
### Edinburgh access to Language Models (ELM)
Find out about ELM, the University’s central gateway to safer access of Generative Artificial Intelligence for staff and students.
For systematic or large-scale adoption (including AI in third-party apps or the introduction of AI into an existing platform) for non-research activities, follow the approval process via the ISG Ethics Board, and complete required impact assessments.
• AI Adoption in Research: Schools such as UEBS, Law, and PPLS are
implementing plans to integrate AI into research processes. This includes the
adoption of ethical AI-based tools, such as transcription technology, alongside
ongoing discussions around the ethical implications of AI. Efforts will focus on
developing new policies to address the growing significance of generative AI (GenAI)
in research methodologies.
• Additional Guidelines for Researchers:
HERC will provide new guidance on:
o Secondary data use in research
o Addressing AI disruptions in online surveys
o Linking researchers to the UoE AI Adoption Hub and the Research AI Risk
Assessment document
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 Edinburgh's AI Policies
University of Edinburgh has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
The university requires transparency about AI use for staff, and its student guidance signals that integrity and disclosure matter in academic work. In research and staff contexts, AI output must not be claimed as one's own and users must be transparent about whether and how AI was used.
Undisclosed submission of AI-generated assignment content as a student's own work is treated as academic misconduct. Research misconduct allegations are handled under the university's research misconduct procedures, while allegations relating to research undertaken by students are investigated under the Academic Misconduct Investigation Procedure. No explicit position on AI detection tools is defined in the available source text.
The university recommends ELM as its preferred AI platform for staff because of data security and ethics advantages. It requires users to protect copyright, confidentiality, and personal data, warns that third-party tools should be assumed to share inputs externally, and explicitly prohibits use of ELM with identifiable patient, clinical, or identifiable research participant data. Its data protection guidance also warns that generative AI systems may not comply with legal requirements because input data may be retained and not fully deletable.