Teaching & Learning
- The university defines academic misconduct to include plagiarism and misrepresenting another’s work as one’s own, including allowing someone else to do assigned work
- The policy does not explicitly mention AI tools, but it states that copying homework or allowing someone else to do homework violates academic honesty standards and is subject to academic discipline
Dishonesty, cheating, or plagiarism, or knowingly furnishing false information to the University,
are regarded as particularly serious offenses.
Plagiarism takes place when published material is
copied verbatim or paraphrased without appropriately citing the source of material, and is not
limited to copying the exact words from published material.
In addition to these examples of plagiarism,
a student who copies another's homework, copies answers to test questions, or allows someone
else to do work for him/her on homework or tests also violates the standards of honesty and
fairness and is subject to academic discipline.
Using someone’s work. A student who misrepresents the work of another as his/her own is
engaging in academic misconduct. For example, handing in a paper purchased from a term paper
service, using a paper prepared by another, or engaging another person to take a test (classrelated or standardized, such as the GRE) in his/her stead, are examples of academic misconduct.
- The university treats cheating and attempts to gain an unfair advantage in tests/examinations as academic misconduct and subject to sanctions
- The policy includes examples such as copying answers to test questions, allowing someone else to take a test, and using unapproved devices or reference materials, but it does not explicitly mention AI tools
In addition to these examples of plagiarism,
a student who copies another's homework, copies answers to test questions, or allows someone
else to do work for him/her on homework or tests also violates the standards of honesty and
fairness and is subject to academic discipline.
Using someone’s work. A student who misrepresents the work of another as his/her own is
engaging in academic misconduct. For example, handing in a paper purchased from a term paper
service, using a paper prepared by another, or engaging another person to take a test (classrelated or standardized, such as the GRE) in his/her stead, are examples of academic misconduct.
Gaining or attempting to gain an unfair advantage. Violations of the University’s standards of
honesty include possession, or an attempt to gain possession, of a test prior to its being given.
Other violations include, but are not limited to, accessing computer files; breaking or
entering a locked or unoccupied office in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage; using a cell
phone or other device to obtain materials from websites or other students; using reference
materials that have not been allowed by the instructor; using handwritten or printed notes during
a "closed book/closed notes" test;
Research
- The policy does not explicitly mention AI in research data collection or analysis
- The university identifies falsifying research data or other scientific misconduct as a potential violation of expected standards of honesty
Falsifying research data or other scientific misconduct also may be
considered a violation.
- The provided sources do not define any AI-specific rules for grant proposals, IRB applications, or research ethics disclosures
- The university includes falsifying research data or other scientific misconduct as conduct that may violate expected standards of honesty and be subject to academic discipline
Falsifying research data or other scientific misconduct also may be
considered a violation.
Academic Integrity
- The policy does not provide AI-tool-specific disclosure or citation requirements in the provided source text
- The university requires appropriate citation of sources to avoid plagiarism and defines plagiarism to include copying or paraphrasing without appropriately citing the source
Plagiarism takes place when published material is
copied verbatim or paraphrased without appropriately citing the source of material, and is not
limited to copying the exact words from published material.
- The provided sources do not define any position on AI detection tools
- The university outlines an enforcement process for academic dishonesty: faculty should discuss the alleged violation with the student, may recommend sanctions, and cases can be initiated in the myOleMiss system with appeal rights
When a faculty member believes that a student has committed an act of academic dishonesty,
he/she shall seek to discuss the alleged violation with the student as soon as possible and give the
student an opportunity to explain.
If the faculty member still believes the student committed an
act of academic dishonesty after discussing the matter with the student, the faculty member may
recommend an appropriate sanction, such as grade reduction, retake of a test or examination,
extra work, failure in the course, suspension, expulsion, or a combination of these or other
sanctions.
Initiating an academic discipline case requires the person initiating the case to provide a written
report of the alleged incident, including information regarding the communications with the
student described above, as well as indicate the recommended sanction.
The student may challenge the sanction recommended by a faculty member by logging onto the
page linked in the email notification and submitting a written appeal through the online system
within 14 calendar days of the case being initiated.
Institutional & Administrative
- The provided sources do not include the actual guidelines or a formal university-wide AI policy
- The university has an AI Task Force that meets to discuss AI impacts on teaching, research, and service, and the task force is expected to write suggested guidelines for the Provost on best practices as the university responds to AI
Recordings of meetings and presentations hosted by the Academic Innovations Group, including the University of Mississippi AI Task Force. The UM AI Task Force meets quarterly to discuss AI as it affects our teaching, research, and service missions.
This year the AI Task force will write suggested guidelines for the Provost on how to develop best practices for the University as it responds to AI in the pursuit of teaching, research, service, and business practices.
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 Mississippi's AI Policies
University of Mississippi has defined AI policies in 7 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 58%.
The university requires appropriate citation of sources to avoid plagiarism and defines plagiarism to include copying or paraphrasing without appropriately citing the source. The policy does not provide AI-tool-specific disclosure or citation requirements in the provided source text.
The university outlines an enforcement process for academic dishonesty: faculty should discuss the alleged violation with the student, may recommend sanctions, and cases can be initiated in the myOleMiss system with appeal rights. The provided sources do not define any position on AI detection tools.
No explicit data protection or approved AI platform policy is currently defined in the available policy sources.