Teaching & Learning
- For taught coursework, AI use is not governed by a single blanket permission rule
- If students use AI in ways not allowed by the assessment brief or module guidance, the university treats this as academic misconduct
- Students may use AI only within the limits set for the specific assessment, and work can be AI-excluded, AI-permitted, or AI-integrated
At Sussex, there are three categories of AI use in assessed work:
AI Excluded. The use of AI tools and technologies for this assessment is not permitted.
AI Permitted. You may use AI tools and technologies in an assistive role to help with specific tasks, but not to create outputs that are submitted as your own work.
AI Integrated. You are expected to engage with AI tools and technologies to support your learning and complete this assessment.
Always follow the instructions in your assessment brief and on Canvas, and ask your tutor if you are unsure what’s allowed.
If your use of AI falls outside of what is permitted for the assessment, or if you do not acknowledge how you have used AI, then this may be considered academic misconduct.
- Assessment use of AI is determined at assessment level through the university's three-category model
- Some assessments prohibit AI entirely, some permit only limited assistive use, and some require engagement with AI
- The governing rule is that students must follow the assessment brief and Canvas instructions for that particular exam or assessment
At Sussex, there are three categories of AI use in assessed work:
AI Excluded. The use of AI tools and technologies for this assessment is not permitted.
AI Permitted. You may use AI tools and technologies in an assistive role to help with specific tasks, but not to create outputs that are submitted as your own work.
AI Integrated. You are expected to engage with AI tools and technologies to support your learning and complete this assessment.
Always follow the instructions in your assessment brief and on Canvas, and ask your tutor if you are unsure what’s allowed.
- Students are also told not to upload personal or sensitive information into public AI tools
- The university permits students to use AI as a study aid for personal learning activities such as summarising readings, brainstorming questions, and practising explanations, but warns that outputs may be unreliable and should be checked carefully
You can use AI tools to support your learning, for example to:
summarise your notes or readings
brainstorm essay or revision questions
quiz yourself on key concepts
explain a difficult idea in simpler terms
The information generated by AI may not always be reliable, complete or up to date. It can also reflect bias or make things up entirely, so always check what it produces.
Don't upload personal data, confidential information or your own assessed work into public AI tools.
- The university does not set a separate university-wide rule specifically for programming assignments
- Coding-related AI use falls under the same assessment-category framework as other assessed work, so whether code generation is allowed depends on the assessment brief and module guidance
At Sussex, there are three categories of AI use in assessed work:
AI Excluded. The use of AI tools and technologies for this assessment is not permitted.
AI Permitted. You may use AI tools and technologies in an assistive role to help with specific tasks, but not to create outputs that are submitted as your own work.
AI Integrated. You are expected to engage with AI tools and technologies to support your learning and complete this assessment.
Always follow the instructions in your assessment brief and on Canvas, and ask your tutor if you are unsure what’s allowed.
Research
- AI systems cannot be listed as authors
- The university also states that material produced by AI without critical engagement may be treated as plagiarism or misconduct
- For postgraduate research theses, AI-generated text, images, or other materials may be used only if the student clearly acknowledges the use and remains fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and originality of the submission
You may use generative AI tools in the preparation of your thesis, but the nature and extent of this use should be clearly acknowledged in your thesis. You remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity and originality of all content, including any errors, omissions, plagiarism or breaches of research integrity or ethics arising from the use of AI-generated material.
Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of the thesis.
PGR submissions should not include text, images, data or any other materials generated wholly or in part by AI technologies without acknowledgement and critical engagement. Such use may be considered plagiarism and/or a form of misconduct, depending on the context and extent of the use.
- Staff and students must not input highly restricted or sensitive data into AI tools, and personal data may be used only where a legal basis exists and the tool's terms permit it
- The university does not provide a specific research-only rule on AI for data analysis in the listed research governance sources, but it does impose strict data-protection limits on using AI tools with university information
You should not put restricted and highly restricted information into publicly available AI tools. This includes the special category personal information listed below, as this would potentially violate the Data Protection Act and could compromise the University’s compliance under UK GDPR.
Personal data is defined as data that can identify a living person. Staff and students must not input any personal data into an AI tool where there is no lawful basis to do so under data protection legislation or where the AI tool’s terms and conditions prohibit the use of personal data.
- For research degree submissions, unacknowledged AI-generated material may amount to plagiarism or misconduct
- Research involving personal data must satisfy data protection law and tool terms, and sensitive or highly restricted information must not be entered into public AI systems
- The university requires researchers using AI in research to consider legal, ethical, and governance implications, including copyright, privacy, data protection, and confidentiality
As with any technology used in teaching or research, it is important to think through the legal, ethical and governance implications of your use of AI. This includes issues around copyright, privacy, data protection and confidentiality.
Personal data is defined as data that can identify a living person. Staff and students must not input any personal data into an AI tool where there is no lawful basis to do so under data protection legislation or where the AI tool’s terms and conditions prohibit the use of personal data.
You should not put restricted and highly restricted information into publicly available AI tools.
PGR submissions should not include text, images, data or any other materials generated wholly or in part by AI technologies without acknowledgement and critical engagement. Such use may be considered plagiarism and/or a form of misconduct, depending on the context and extent of the use.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure of AI use is required when AI is used in assessed work or postgraduate research submissions
- Students must acknowledge how AI was used, and the university provides a reference format for generative AI
- For PGR theses, the nature and extent of AI use must be clearly acknowledged, and AI-generated content cannot be included without acknowledgement and critical engagement
If your use of AI falls outside of what is permitted for the assessment, or if you do not acknowledge how you have used AI, then this may be considered academic misconduct.
Referencing generative AI
If your tutor has said that you can use generative AI in your work, then you should reference it if:
it contributes directly to your argument, analysis, wording, structure or evidence
you include any AI-generated content, even if you’ve edited or rewritten it.
You may not need to reference AI if:
you only used it for private brainstorming or planning, and none of the content appears in your final work
you used it in a way that didn’t shape the submitted work.
You may use generative AI tools in the preparation of your thesis, but the nature and extent of this use should be clearly acknowledged in your thesis.
PGR submissions should not include text, images, data or any other materials generated wholly or in part by AI technologies without acknowledgement and critical engagement.
- Undisclosed or impermissible AI use can be pursued as academic misconduct
- The listed sources do not set out a specific approved AI-detection-tool policy in the extracted text
- The university's misconduct policy explicitly defines breaches involving AI-generated content, fabricated references, and unacknowledged translation tools, and sanctions range from warnings or mark penalties to failing modules, termination, or revocation in severe cases
Academic misconduct can include:
• using unauthorised AI-generated content in assessed work.
• creating fabricated references or citations using AI tools or other means.
• using translation software or services, including AI-generated translation, without explicit authorisation where language proficiency is part of the assessment.
If your use of AI falls outside of what is permitted for the assessment, or if you do not acknowledge how you have used AI, then this may be considered academic misconduct.
In deciding the penalty to be imposed, the Decision-Maker shall consider all relevant factors, and the final penalty may take any one of the following forms:
a) Record a warning and permit the Student to remain on the course without penalty;
b) Require the Student to re-submit / re-sit the assessment to obtain a capped mark;
c) Require the Student to re-submit / re-sit the assessment to obtain an uncapped mark;
d) Reduce the mark for the assessment, without permitting a re-sit or re-submission;
e) Award a mark of zero for the assessment, without permitting a re-sit or re-submission;
f) Permit the Student to re-submit / re-sit the assessment to obtain a capped mark and reduce the mark for the original assessment;
g) Require the Student to repeat the stage/term of the course;
h) Award the Student a lower qualification than they would otherwise be entitled to receive;
i) Terminate the Student’s registration;
j) Revoke a degree or award;
Institutional & Administrative
- Staff are also warned not to use AI to write references or recommendation letters in a way that misrepresents personal knowledge or judgment
- Staff may use AI to support teaching and administrative work, but they remain responsible for checking outputs and must not delegate final academic judgment to AI
- The university says AI may help with tasks such as planning, drafting, or feedback support, but assessment design and student-facing decisions must be controlled by educators
You can use AI tools to support teaching, but you remain responsible for the quality, accuracy and appropriateness of anything you produce or share with students.
AI can assist with tasks such as planning teaching, generating ideas, creating examples, drafting feedback, and producing accessible materials. However, it should not replace your academic judgement.
Assessment decisions must be made by the educator. AI tools must not be used to make final decisions about marks, grades or academic progression.
Do not use AI to draft references or recommendation letters that imply personal knowledge or judgement you have not exercised yourself.
- It also states that university-approved tools offer stronger contractual and privacy protections than public tools
- Users must check whether tools are institutionally approved and comply with data protection and confidentiality requirements
- The university restricts what data may be entered into AI tools and directs staff and students not to use public AI systems for restricted, highly restricted, or unlawfully processed personal data
You should not put restricted and highly restricted information into publicly available AI tools. This includes the special category personal information listed below, as this would potentially violate the Data Protection Act and could compromise the University’s compliance under UK GDPR.
Personal data is defined as data that can identify a living person. Staff and students must not input any personal data into an AI tool where there is no lawful basis to do so under data protection legislation or where the AI tool’s terms and conditions prohibit the use of personal data.
University-approved AI tools may have additional contractual safeguards, including stronger privacy protections and clearer terms on data use, retention and ownership, than publicly available tools.
- Its overarching approach emphasizes human responsibility, legal and ethical compliance, and awareness of bias, inaccuracy, and confidentiality risks rather than fully autonomous use
- The university has an institution-level AI principles framework that presents AI as a tool to be used responsibly, critically, and transparently across teaching, learning, research, and administration
These principles are designed to support staff and students to use AI safely, ethically and effectively in ways that align with the University’s values, legal obligations and educational mission.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already shaping the ways we learn, teach, research and work. At the University of Sussex, we see AI as a tool that can support creativity, productivity and inclusion, but it must be used thoughtfully and responsibly.
As with any technology used in teaching or research, it is important to think through the legal, ethical and governance implications of your use of AI. This includes issues around copyright, privacy, data protection and confidentiality.
AI systems can produce inaccurate, misleading or biased outputs. You remain responsible for checking the quality and appropriateness of anything you create or share using 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 Sussex's AI Policies
University of Sussex has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure of AI use is required when AI is used in assessed work or postgraduate research submissions. Students must acknowledge how AI was used, and the university provides a reference format for generative AI. For PGR theses, the nature and extent of AI use must be clearly acknowledged, and AI-generated content cannot be included without acknowledgement and critical engagement.
Undisclosed or impermissible AI use can be pursued as academic misconduct. The university's misconduct policy explicitly defines breaches involving AI-generated content, fabricated references, and unacknowledged translation tools, and sanctions range from warnings or mark penalties to failing modules, termination, or revocation in severe cases. The listed sources do not set out a specific approved AI-detection-tool policy in the extracted text.
The university restricts what data may be entered into AI tools and directs staff and students not to use public AI systems for restricted, highly restricted, or unlawfully processed personal data. It also states that university-approved tools offer stronger contractual and privacy protections than public tools. Users must check whether tools are institutionally approved and comply with data protection and confidentiality requirements.