Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in graded coursework is determined per assessment rather than by a single blanket rule
- If AI is prohibited for that task, using it is treated as false authorship and academic misconduct
- Students must check each module handbook or assessment brief to see whether AI use is essential, optional, or prohibited, and must not assume it is allowed
You will be advised whether use of generative AI is essential, optional, or prohibited for each assessment task. This information should be clearly stated in your module handbooks or assessment briefs.
Do not make any assumptions about the use of generative AI in an assessment. If you can't find guidance on AI use for a specific assessment, ask your tutor or module convenor.
Where use of generative AI is prohibited for an assessment task, the university equates use of these tools with false authorship, which is a form of academic misconduct and will carry similar penalties. Content created or significantly modified by generative AI, whether text, code, images, or video, is not considered to be your own work.
- For assessments, AI rules are set on a per-assessment basis
- Using AI where it is not permitted is treated as false authorship
- Assessment documents should specify permitted, optional, essential, or prohibited uses, and also explain how students must acknowledge and evidence any AI use
Guidance on uses of artificial intelligence (AI) will now be given on a per assessment basis – you should check each individual assessment brief to see what uses of AI are permitted.
For each assessment, your module handbook and/or assessment documents should specify which uses of AI are essential, optional or prohibited.
The assessment-specific information should also tell you how to acknowledge and provide evidence of any AI use.
If you can't find this information, check with your module convenor. Do not make any assumptions about uses of AI in your assessments.
False Authorship includes the submission of work that is generated and/or improved by software that is not permitted for that assessment. This may include the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to produce text, images or data or other work (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, BARD, Wordtune, Quillbot, DALL-E, chatbots and similar).
- It says practices may differ across subject areas and students should check with tutors
- The university permits AI for study support outside assessments, but frames this as responsible and careful use rather than unrestricted use
- For study support outside assessments, the university recommends Microsoft Copilot with a University login because of privacy and data protection
You can work through the resource below to explore appropriate and suggested uses of AI for study support outside of your assessments:
There will be different policies and approaches in place across different subject areas. You should always check with your tutors about using AI tools to support your studies.
For any part of your studies in which you are not being assessed, you should make careful judgements about how (and how much) you make use of generative AI to support your learning.
When using generative AI to support your studies outside of your assessments, the university provides access to and recommends use of Microsoft Copilot, with your University of Nottingham login.
When you are logged in, Copilot will not record your prompts, inputs, and uploads as training data. This is the best way to maintain privacy and data protection whilst using generative AI.
- When prohibited, such use is treated as false authorship
- The university includes code within its assessment AI rules
- AI-generated or significantly modified code may only be used when the relevant assessment states that AI use is essential or optional; otherwise it is prohibited
Content created or significantly modified by generative AI, whether text, code, images, or video, should only be used if this is clearly stated to be essential or optional for an assessment task, and should always be fully evidenced and acknowledged.
Where use of generative AI is prohibited for an assessment task, the university equates use of these tools with false authorship, which is a form of academic misconduct and will carry similar penalties. Content created or significantly modified by generative AI, whether text, code, images, or video, is not considered to be your own work.
Research
- The university does require research data to be managed securely and in compliance with data protection and other policies
- The provided research materials set general research data management requirements, but they do not define a specific AI policy for using AI in data collection, analysis, synthetic data generation, or interpretation of results
RDM Planning: A Data Management Plan (DMP) must be created before data collection,
reviewed and updated throughout the project, and comply with funder requirements. If
personal data is involved, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) may be required.
Working with Research Data: Data must conform to licenses, stored securely, and
accompanied with adequate metadata. Data must be transferred to a managed environment
as soon as possible.
Publishing and Sharing Research Data: PI/Lead Researchers must make data discoverable
- Researchers are directed to seek ethics advice when there is doubt about ethical review needs
- The university has an institution-wide research integrity framework that governs all research and places overall oversight with named research integrity leadership
- The annual statement shows that the university is developing guidance on 'Research Employing Artificial Intelligence,' but the provided sources do not set out detailed AI rules for grant proposals, ethics applications, or declarations
The University of Nottingham’s Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics (the Code) provides a comprehensive framework for good research conduct and the governance of all research carried out across the university, including its international campuses.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange Professor Tom Rodden has the overall responsibility to oversee research integrity for the University of Nottingham.
Recent additions to the series include topics such as:
• Service Improvements and/or Evaluation Research
• Safeguarding in Research
• Research Employing Artificial Intelligence
Research staff are especially vigilant regarding the potential need to seek the opinion of one
or more ethics committees. If there is any doubt about the need for ethical review in relation
to their proposed research, staff should seek advice from their School Research Ethics
Officer.
Academic Integrity
- The university also tells students to keep records or chat logs of AI interactions
- When AI use is allowed in assessed work, students are required to acknowledge it and provide evidence in the manner specified for that assessment
- The exact disclosure format is set locally in the module handbook or assessment brief and may include integrated acknowledgements, appendices with full interactions, statements of acknowledgement, or citations and references
The information should also tell you how to acknowledge and provide evidence of any AI use.
Content created or significantly modified by generative AI, whether text, code, images, or video, should only be used if this is clearly stated to be essential or optional for an assessment task, and should always be fully evidenced and acknowledged.
A range of approaches to acknowledging AI use are possible, depending on how it has been used. For example:
* An acknowledgement integrated into the assessment task
* An appendix containing your full interaction(s) with the AI tool
* A statement of acknowledgement
* Citations and references
The precise manner in which you are expected to acknowledge your use of AI will be explained in your module handbook or assessment brief.
Whenever you are interacting with generative AI, it is good practice to keep a full record or chat log of these interactions. This will provide evidence of how you have engaged with generative AI, should it be needed later.
- The provided sources do not define a university position on AI detection tools themselves
- The university states that misuse of AI in assessments can result in penalties under academic misconduct rules
- It classifies unauthorized or unacknowledged use of software tools, including generative AI, as false authorship, a form of plagiarism
With the proliferation of online artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, the university has updated its policies around the use of AI in assessments. Do you know when it’s appropriate to use AI and what the penalties are for misusing it?
Where use of generative AI is prohibited for an assessment task, the university equates use of these tools with false authorship, which is a form of academic misconduct and will carry similar penalties.
False Authorship is where a student is not the sole author of the work they have submitted as their own work. False Authorship is a form of plagiarism but is distinguished by the fact that the student has engaged with an unauthorised or unacknowledged third party and/or software tool to complete an assessment, either in part or whole.
False Authorship includes the submission of work that is generated and/or improved by software that is not permitted for that assessment. This may include the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to produce text, images or data or other work (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, BARD, Wordtune, Quillbot, DALL-E, chatbots and similar).
Institutional & Administrative
- For student study support outside assessments, the university provides and recommends Microsoft Copilot with a University login on privacy and data protection grounds
- The research code separately requires secure handling of research data, managed environments, and data protection compliance, but it does not define a university-wide approved-platform policy for all AI use cases in the provided sources
When using generative AI to support your studies outside of your assessments, the university provides access to and recommends use of Microsoft Copilot, with your University of Nottingham login.
When you are logged in, Copilot will not record your prompts, inputs, and uploads as training data. This is the best way to maintain privacy and data protection whilst using generative AI.
Working with Research Data: Data must conform to licenses, stored securely, and
accompanied with adequate metadata. Data must be transferred to a managed environment
as soon as possible.
- The provided sources do not identify a single standalone university-wide AI strategy document or AI committee for all domains, beyond existing research integrity governance
- The university has adopted an institution-level approach under which AI guidance for assessments is now given per assessment, with assessment briefs specifying essential, optional, or prohibited uses
- For research, the university states that its Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics provides the overall governance framework, and the annual statement records activity related to responsible AI and research employing artificial intelligence
Guidance on uses of artificial intelligence (AI) will now be given on a per assessment basis – you should check each individual assessment brief to see what uses of AI are permitted.
While the use of AI in assessments has previously been prohibited unless otherwise stated, we are now moving to per-assessment AI guidance. This means that there will be specific permissions and instructions for each assessment on the use of AI.
The University of Nottingham’s Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics (the Code) provides a comprehensive framework for good research conduct and the governance of all research carried out across the university, including its international campuses.
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange Professor Tom Rodden has the overall responsibility to oversee research integrity for the University of Nottingham.
Recent additions to the series include topics such as:
• Service Improvements and/or Evaluation Research
• Safeguarding in Research
• Research Employing Artificial Intelligence
o Responsible AI UK (RAI-UK): Core membership in a national programme on safe and
responsible AI.
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 Nottingham's AI Policies
University of Nottingham has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
When AI use is allowed in assessed work, students are required to acknowledge it and provide evidence in the manner specified for that assessment. The exact disclosure format is set locally in the module handbook or assessment brief and may include integrated acknowledgements, appendices with full interactions, statements of acknowledgement, or citations and references. The university also tells students to keep records or chat logs of AI interactions.
The university states that misuse of AI in assessments can result in penalties under academic misconduct rules. It classifies unauthorized or unacknowledged use of software tools, including generative AI, as false authorship, a form of plagiarism. The provided sources do not define a university position on AI detection tools themselves.
For student study support outside assessments, the university provides and recommends Microsoft Copilot with a University login on privacy and data protection grounds. The research code separately requires secure handling of research data, managed environments, and data protection compliance, but it does not define a university-wide approved-platform policy for all AI use cases in the provided sources.