Teaching & Learning
- For assessed coursework and assignments, AI use is only allowed within University guidelines and the assessment brief
- Submitting work created wholly, substantially, or partially using AI as if it were the student's own original work, or using AI contrary to the assessment brief, is treated as academic misconduct
Our Student Academic Integrity Regulations apply to the preparation and presentation of all assessed work. This includes:
* Coursework, essays, or assignments
Unauthorised use of AI and fabrication of data. The University will take appropriate action to address any instances of academic misconduct.
Unauthorised use of AI to write or substantially contribute to the creation of an assignment, in contravention of the assessment brief where the student then submits this as their own original piece of work.
You may use tools such as ChatGPT to help you with your studies, provided you do so within the guidelines of the University – AI can assist you but cannot do your work for you.
- AI use is prohibited where it is unauthorized or contrary to the assessment brief, and this is treated as an attempt to gain unfair advantage
- The academic misconduct rules apply to examinations and other formal assessments, including electronic, remote, and time-constrained assessments
Our Student Academic Integrity Regulations apply to the preparation and presentation of all assessed work. This includes:
* All written and oral exams (including electronic and remote)
* Time-constrained assessments
3.2 This Policy applies to the preparation and presentation of all assessed work, including but not limited
to written and oral examinations, including those undertaken electronically and remotely, and other time‐constrained assessments, coursework, essays or assignments, projects, dissertations, practical work,
placement or field trip reports and the production of creative work.
Unauthorised Use of AI (S10) - Submission of work created wholly, substantially and/or partially using AI,
in contravention of the assessment brief where the student then claims this to be their own original piece
of work.
- Students may use generative AI to support their studies, but it cannot do the work for them
- The university requires transparency about use and directs students to check with lecturers for any course-level requirements such as declarations, appendices of prompts and outputs, and how AI use should be referenced
Generative AI is becoming a frequently used tool all over the world in every field. You may use tools such as ChatGPT to help you with your studies, provided you do so within the guidelines of the University – AI can assist you but cannot do your work for you.
If you do decide to use it, always check with your lecturers on how they want transparency of use. As well as referencing, this may include a signed declaration and/or an appendix of generative AI prompts and outputs.
* Transparency is key – always acknowledge the use of AI tools
* Fact check all AI outputs – generative AI is predicting results based on the information you put in and its stored data. It isn't always accurate, so don't rely on it for research purposes
Research
- The research governance sources state that research must follow the university's ethics principles, codes of practice, and law
- The university provides general guidance that generative AI should not do a person's work and that any use should be acknowledged and referenced, but the supplied sources do not define a research-specific rule for AI use in drafting or editing manuscripts, theses, or dissertations
Generative AI is becoming a frequently used tool all over the world in every field. You may use tools such as ChatGPT to help you with your studies, provided you do so within the guidelines of the University – AI can assist you but cannot do your work for you.
* Transparency is key – always acknowledge the use of AI tools
If you are using generative AI in your work and want to reference it, please follow the Cite Them Right Harvard referencing rules on how to reference generative AI in your work (requires logging in).
It is the University's policy that all of our research must be conducted in accordance with the University's Research Ethics Principles, Professional Codes of Practice and the law.
- In the student academic misconduct policy, falsifying data or experimental results and conducting research data collection without prior ethical approval where required are treated as misconduct
- The research code requires research data to be generated using sound techniques and processes, recorded in line with good research practice, and managed securely and in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements
The generation of research data should be done using sound techniques and processes, ensuring that all information used or generated is recorded in accordance with good research practices, as well as all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. Researchers must comply with data protection legislation when collecting personal data.
All research data must be managed and curated effectively to ensure integrity, security, and quality.
g. Falsifying data, evidence or experimental results (either qualitative or quantitative), through
invention or amendment, which is then presented by the student as if it had been legitimately
gathered in line with the norms of the discipline concerned; or a failure to provide raw data used
for research work when requested to.
h. Ethics approval -conducting research and data collection without prior ethical approval, where it
is explicitly required.
- The university's research policy requires all research to comply with its research ethics principles, professional codes of practice, and the law
- Researchers must secure appropriate permissions, approvals, and licenses before research starts, consider ethical risk before undertaking work, and acknowledge and accept the research code when submitting through the university ethics system
It is the University's policy that all of our research must be conducted in accordance with the University's Research Ethics Principles, Professional Codes of Practice and the law.
It is the responsibility of researchers to ensure that all appropriate permissions, approvals, and licenses are in place before the research starts and that they are renewed or updated as necessary throughout the duration of the project.
Researchers are required to consider the ethical risk of any procedure within a research project, consulting the relevant University and local policies and personnel before any work is undertaken.
All staff and students submitting an application through the University ethics system are required to acknowledge their awareness and acceptance of the ‘Code’ as part of the submission process.
Academic Integrity
- The university requires transparency when students use generative AI and instructs them to acknowledge AI tools and reference them appropriately
- It also states that lecturers may require additional disclosure measures such as a signed declaration, an appendix of prompts and outputs, or a copy of personal communications, so some implementation is at lecturer discretion
If you do decide to use it, always check with your lecturers on how they want transparency of use. As well as referencing, this may include a signed declaration and/or an appendix of generative AI prompts and outputs.
* Transparency is key – always acknowledge the use of AI tools
* Output type matters – specify whether you're referencing the tool itself, the output it generated, or both
* If the material is available online for everyone to access, reference it as an electronic version of a source (same as referencing a report or article)
* If the end product (for example, use of ChatGPT in conversation) is only available to you, reference it as a personal communication and include a description of the material in your in-text citation. Consult your lecturer in case they require you to provide a copy as an appendix to your work.
If you are using generative AI in your work and want to reference it, please follow the Cite Them Right Harvard referencing rules on how to reference generative AI in your work (requires logging in).
- The university explicitly classifies unauthorized AI use as academic misconduct and states that it will take action on such cases
- The policy also treats deliberate attempts to bypass originality software as misconduct, and it sets out investigation and interview procedures led by academic staff and module leaders for suspected cases
1.2 Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, collusion, cheating, unauthorised use
of AI and fabrication of data. The University will take appropriate action to address any instances of
academic misconduct.
Deliberate Attempt to Avoid Detection by Originality Software - Submitting pictures of text, or
hidden text, within an assignment to hide plagiarism or collusion, artificially increase or decrease
the word count, or any other attempt to bypass originality detection.
In most cases academic staff will identify academic misconduct
8.1 The Module Leader should notify the student and arrange an interview within two weeks of initial
marking, giving at least three working days’ notice.
8.2 The student must be informed of the suspected misconduct, the offence code, and its description to
prepare for the interview.
Unauthorised Use of AI (S10) - Submission of work created wholly, substantially and/or partially using AI,
in contravention of the assessment brief where the student then claims this to be their own original piece
of work.
Institutional & Administrative
- However, the sources do not define approved AI platforms or AI-specific data entry rules
- The supplied research governance sources require compliance with data protection legislation and set storage and security requirements for personal and identifiable research data
Researchers must comply with data protection legislation when collecting personal data.
All research data must be managed and curated effectively to ensure integrity, security, and quality. Where possible, this should be done in a way that supports new research and data sharing. Any data stored locally should be backed up and have appropriate password protection/encryption security. All electronic files containing personal data should be encrypted or password protected and access to them should be limited and controlled.
All identifiable research participant data must be stored on University servers and decoupled from research data. It is critical that confidentiality, where required, is upheld.
Additionally, researchers should ensure the confidentiality of personal information relating to research participants, and that the research fulfils all relevant legal requirements including data protection legislation.
- The supplied sources do not set out an overarching university AI strategy, roadmap, or AI committee
- They do show governance for research ethics and integrity through the University Research Ethics Committee and Faculty Research Ethics subcommittees, but this is research governance rather than an institution-wide AI strategy
The University Research Ethics Committee (REC) has overarching responsibility for research ethics policy, guidance, and processes at the University.
REC operates as a strategic committee with delegated authority from the University’s Research and Innovation Committee (RIC), providing oversight to Faculty Research Ethics subcommittees (FRECs) that have devolved responsibility for servicing ethical reviews of research projects.
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 Sunderland's AI Policies
University of Sunderland has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
The university requires transparency when students use generative AI and instructs them to acknowledge AI tools and reference them appropriately. It also states that lecturers may require additional disclosure measures such as a signed declaration, an appendix of prompts and outputs, or a copy of personal communications, so some implementation is at lecturer discretion.
The university explicitly classifies unauthorized AI use as academic misconduct and states that it will take action on such cases. The policy also treats deliberate attempts to bypass originality software as misconduct, and it sets out investigation and interview procedures led by academic staff and module leaders for suspected cases.
The supplied research governance sources require compliance with data protection legislation and set storage and security requirements for personal and identifiable research data. However, the sources do not define approved AI platforms or AI-specific data entry rules.