Teaching & Learning
- For student coursework, URI does not set a single university-wide rule allowing or banning AI for all assignments
- Instead, use is determined by instructor/course policy, and students are expected to follow the syllabus statement or assignment directions; using unauthorized AI can be treated as academic dishonesty
It is the faculty member’s prerogative to determine how AI tools can be used in the course and to communicate to students the extent to which AI use is or is not permitted in class materials.
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
Academic dishonesty means cheating, the fabrication of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students.
Copying or using unauthorized materials, information, notes, study aids, technology or other devices or communication from another person or source in any academic exercise, or using another person or source to provide unauthorized assistance in any academic exercise, regardless of intent, are examples of cheating.
- URI does not provide a separate institution-wide AI rule specifically for exams and quizzes in the provided sources
- Exam-related AI use is governed by instructor directions and general academic dishonesty rules against unauthorized assistance or technology during academic exercises
It is the faculty member’s prerogative to determine how AI tools can be used in the course and to communicate to students the extent to which AI use is or is not permitted in class materials.
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
Copying or using unauthorized materials, information, notes, study aids, technology or other devices or communication from another person or source in any academic exercise, or using another person or source to provide unauthorized assistance in any academic exercise, regardless of intent, are examples of cheating.
Knowingly gaining unauthorized access to or making unauthorized use of tests, quizzes, or any other graded assignments and examinations are examples of cheating.
- URI encourages AI use for learning support when it is used appropriately
- The teaching resources describe AI as potentially useful for studying, tutoring, practice, and idea generation, but any use in a course remains subject to the instructor’s rules communicated in the syllabus and class materials
As a student, AI can support your learning in a variety of ways, depending on your goals and the context of your coursework.
Students can use Microsoft Copilot Chat to support their learning by asking questions, brainstorming, drafting, summarizing, and generating ideas.
Use these tools critically and always follow the guidance provided by your instructors about what is appropriate in your courses.
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
- The provided sources do not set a URI-wide policy specifically addressing AI code generation for programming assignments
- Any use of AI tools for coding in coursework falls under instructor discretion and general rules against unauthorized assistance
It is the faculty member’s prerogative to determine how AI tools can be used in the course and to communicate to students the extent to which AI use is or is not permitted in class materials.
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
Copying or using unauthorized materials, information, notes, study aids, technology or other devices or communication from another person or source in any academic exercise, or using another person or source to provide unauthorized assistance in any academic exercise, regardless of intent, are examples of cheating.
Research
- URI allows AI tools to assist with academic research writing only with disclosure, verification, and human accountability
- Researchers must disclose AI use in manuscripts and other research outputs, remain responsible for the content, and may not list AI tools as authors
The use of AI chatbots in the writing of journal articles, grant proposals, dissertations, theses, conference abstracts, and other forms of academic publication must be disclosed according to the requirements of the publication, funding agency, or institution.
Researchers are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of any content generated with assistance from AI tools.
Authors must verify all references, citations, quotations, data interpretations, and factual claims generated by AI, as these tools may fabricate information or produce biased or inaccurate content.
Consistent with authorship guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Elsevier, and major scientific publishers, AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they do not meet standards for accountability, originality, or legal responsibility.
- URI permits AI use in research analysis only with caution and compliance controls
- Researchers must not upload sensitive or regulated data without approval, must assess model suitability and bias, and must document AI use when it materially affects methods or results
Before entering any research-related information into an AI platform, researchers must ensure that doing so complies with all applicable data protection, confidentiality, and intellectual property policies.
Sensitive, confidential, proprietary, or export-controlled data—including unpublished manuscripts, grant applications, personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), student data covered by FERPA, and data subject to IRB or data use agreements—must not be uploaded to public AI tools unless explicitly authorized and appropriately secured.
AI outputs used in coding, statistical analysis, qualitative interpretation, or literature synthesis must be critically evaluated for validity, reproducibility, bias, and disciplinary relevance.
Researchers should document the use of AI tools in research workflows when it materially influences the methods, analysis, or findings.
- URI explicitly frames AI use in research under ethics and integrity obligations
- Researchers must comply with sponsor, publisher, IRB, confidentiality, and authorship rules; they are responsible for verifying AI-generated content and may not use AI in ways that compromise originality, attribution, or legal and ethical standards
Researchers must use AI in ways that align with ethical standards, legal obligations, and the values of transparency, accountability, and scholarly rigor.
The use of AI chatbots in the writing of journal articles, grant proposals, dissertations, theses, conference abstracts, and other forms of academic publication must be disclosed according to the requirements of the publication, funding agency, or institution.
If research involves human subjects, researchers must not use AI tools in ways that conflict with Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, informed consent agreements, or confidentiality requirements.
Researchers are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of any content generated with assistance from AI tools.
AI may not be used to fabricate data, create misleading content, or circumvent standards for originality, authorship, or attribution.
Academic Integrity
- URI requires transparency about AI use in research outputs and requires instructors to communicate course-level AI expectations in syllabi
- For student work, the provided sources do not impose one universal citation format, but course policies can require disclosure; in research contexts, disclosure is mandatory where required by the institution, publisher, or funder
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
The use of AI chatbots in the writing of journal articles, grant proposals, dissertations, theses, conference abstracts, and other forms of academic publication must be disclosed according to the requirements of the publication, funding agency, or institution.
Researchers should document the use of AI tools in research workflows when it materially influences the methods, analysis, or findings.
- The provided sources do not establish a URI-specific AI detection policy or endorse a particular detector
- Enforcement is handled through existing academic misconduct processes, where unauthorized AI use can be treated as cheating or academic dishonesty under faculty-set course rules and university procedures
It is the faculty member’s prerogative to determine how AI tools can be used in the course and to communicate to students the extent to which AI use is or is not permitted in class materials.
Academic dishonesty means cheating, the fabrication of information or citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, having unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, or tampering with the academic work of other students.
Students accused of academic dishonesty have the right to due process through an Academic Integrity Hearing Board.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are also given authority to set course AI policies and must include syllabus statements describing allowed and disallowed uses
- URI permits faculty and staff to use AI tools for work-related purposes, including instructional support, provided they use institutionally approved tools and protect data appropriately
Faculty and staff can use AI tools to support teaching, research, and administrative work, but they should choose tools that align with URI’s privacy, security, and data classification standards.
Use institutionally approved tools, such as Microsoft Copilot Chat, when working with URI data.
It is the faculty member’s prerogative to determine how AI tools can be used in the course and to communicate to students the extent to which AI use is or is not permitted in class materials.
Instructors must include a statement in all syllabi on the acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in the context of each course.
- URI has explicit data protection rules for AI use and identifies Microsoft Copilot Chat as the approved protected option for university data
- Users must not enter confidential, regulated, or otherwise restricted information into public AI tools, and use of AI must follow URI data classification, privacy, and security requirements
As with any technology, it is important to understand what information can and cannot be shared with AI tools.
Do not share confidential, restricted, or regulated data with public AI tools.
Use institutionally approved tools, such as Microsoft Copilot Chat, when working with URI data.
Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat is available to all current URI students, faculty, and staff and offers a secure, university-approved way to use generative AI with institutional protections.
Sensitive, confidential, proprietary, or export-controlled data—including unpublished manuscripts, grant applications, personally identifiable information (PII), protected health information (PHI), student data covered by FERPA, and data subject to IRB or data use agreements—must not be uploaded to public AI tools unless explicitly authorized and appropriately secured.
- URI has an institution-level AI strategy centered on guidance, responsible adoption, and approved tools rather than a single standalone governance policy in the provided sources
- The university presents AI as a cross-campus initiative, provides centralized guidance through IT and academic leadership, and has implemented syllabus policy and research guidance as governance mechanisms
AI at URI is your starting point for learning about artificial intelligence at the University of Rhode Island.
This site brings together guidance, tools, and resources to support the responsible and effective use of AI across teaching, learning, research, and administrative work.
The University expects all instructors to update syllabi for Spring 2025 to include statements clarifying whether and how AI may be used in each course.
These guidelines are intended to support URI researchers in the ethical, responsible, and transparent use of AI chatbot technologies in academic research.
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 Rhode Island's AI Policies
University of Rhode Island has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
URI requires transparency about AI use in research outputs and requires instructors to communicate course-level AI expectations in syllabi. For student work, the provided sources do not impose one universal citation format, but course policies can require disclosure; in research contexts, disclosure is mandatory where required by the institution, publisher, or funder.
The provided sources do not establish a URI-specific AI detection policy or endorse a particular detector. Enforcement is handled through existing academic misconduct processes, where unauthorized AI use can be treated as cheating or academic dishonesty under faculty-set course rules and university procedures.
URI has explicit data protection rules for AI use and identifies Microsoft Copilot Chat as the approved protected option for university data. Users must not enter confidential, regulated, or otherwise restricted information into public AI tools, and use of AI must follow URI data classification, privacy, and security requirements.