Teaching & Learning
- The university does not set a single uniform rule for student AI use in coursework; instructors are expected to set clear course-level boundaries and expectations
- The university provides a suggested syllabus statement indicating that using generative AI tools without citation, documentation, or authorization is included within academic honesty expectations and may lead to sanctions under the student conduct policy
Because there’s no universal standard for AI use in education, instructors must proactively guide students by setting clear boundaries, explaining appropriate use, and adapting policies as tools evolve.
We highly recommend including a statement in your syllabus detailing expectations around use of generative AI tools with regards to academic honesty. This may look like:
It is expected that students adhere to University of Utah policies regarding academic honesty, including but not limited to refraining from cheating, plagiarizing, misrepresenting one's work, and/or inappropriately collaborating.
This includes the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools without citation, documentation, or authorization.
Any student who engages in academic dishonesty or who violates the professional and ethical standards for their profession/discipline may be subject to academic sanctions as per Policy 6-410, Student Academic Performance, Academic Conduct, and Professional and Ethical Conduct.
- The university does not define exam- or quiz-specific rules for AI use in the provided materials
- It generally emphasizes that instructors must set boundaries and communicate expectations for AI use in their courses because there is no universal standard
Because there’s no universal standard for AI use in education, instructors must proactively guide students by setting clear boundaries, explaining appropriate use, and adapting policies as tools evolve.
- The university provides general guidance encouraging instructors to discuss with students when AI tools can support learning versus replace it
- It also suggests using AI reflection and structured choices (“AI-assisted” vs “AI-free”) to promote transparency and ethical use habits, but it does not set a university-wide rule defining permitted student study/tutoring uses across all courses
Begin your course with an open discussion about AI. Clarify how tools like Microsoft Copilot can support—but not replace—student learning.
Ask students to reflect on how they used AI in an assignment: What prompt did you use? What worked well? What did you revise or reject?
Consider giving students the option to complete assignments with or without AI tools. Offer both “AI-assisted” and “AI-free” versions to promote transparency, build ethical use habits, and allow students to practice discernment and responsibility.
- The university does not define course-level permissions for AI code generation in student programming assignments in the provided sources
- For university business, it lists GitHub Copilot as not approved and indicates that approved enterprise tools are limited to public data only, which may affect instructional or staff/faculty use in university contexts
GitHub Copilot Not approved Does not currently meet the compliance requirements for business use.
Currently, approved enterprise tools can only be used with public data, as defined by Rule 4-004C. These tools are not approved for use with restricted or sensitive data.
Research
- The university states that AI cannot be listed as an author
- For manuscripts, it emphasizes that journal requirements vary, but it highlights transparency and responsibility: authors who use AI tools must disclose how and which tool was used, and authors are responsible for ensuring AI outputs are appropriate and accurate, including review and editing to address errors or bias
Can AI be listed as an author?
No.
Specific journals and research disciplines have different requirements concerning the use of AI in the writing process. In general, “authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used”
Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI generated outputs are appropriate and accurate. “Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased”
- The university’s research integrity guidance includes AI use in the collection and analysis of data within transparency expectations for manuscripts
- Separately, university guidance on approved tools indicates that approved enterprise tools are limited to public data only, and the FAQ describes a procurement/security review process (including sponsor permission, agreements, vendor training restrictions, and permitted storage locations) for using AI tools in research
In general, “authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used”
Currently, approved enterprise tools can only be used with public data, as defined by Rule 4-004C. These tools are not approved for use with restricted or sensitive data.
First, be sure to understand your data classification (Rule 4-004C) and explore what solutions are already available or could be created using a tool listed as approved on Tools and Infrastructure. If you want to use a different AI tool, complete the AI Tool Form. Tools must go through a procurement and security review process.
This ensures vendors and the use of institutional data are evaluated by IT, information security, legal counsel, and other stakeholders as necessary. Stakeholders will work with you to confirm the following:
* Grants/sponsors permit the use of AI.
* A confidentiality agreement, data use agreement, data sharing agreement, and/or a business associate agreement are completed as required.
* The vendor won't train on data.
* Data flows through and is stored in only permitted locations.
- It also states that using AI in the peer review process is a breach of confidentiality and cites NIH’s prohibition for NIH peer review, noting that even using AI to draft or polish critiques is considered a confidentiality breach
- The university warns that researchers remain responsible and accountable for AI-generated content and that reliance on unverified AI material can expose authors to findings of academic and research misconduct if fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism are present
When considering the use of generative AI in scientific writing, users must accept responsibility and accountability for the content produced by such tools.
Because generative AI has been found to plagiarize and fabricate material, authors who rely upon AI generated material without confirming the accuracy of the information will open themselves up to findings of academic and research misconduct should fabrication, falsification or plagiarism be contained within those AI materials.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has prohibited “scientific peer reviewers from using natural language processors, large language models, or other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies for analyzing and formulating peer review critiques for grant applications and R&D contract proposals”
Utilizing AI in the peer review process is a breach of confidentiality because these tools “have no guarantee of where data are being sent, saved, viewed, or used in the future”
Using AI tools to help draft a critique or to assist with improving grammar and syntax of a critique draft are both considered breaches of confidentiality.
Academic Integrity
- The university requires transparency in research manuscripts when AI is used (disclosing how and which tool was used) and emphasizes citation/attribution practices to avoid plagiarism
- For broader university communications, UIT guidance says to be transparent and to always cite the use of generative AI tools; IT guidance also states that if AI output is used as a source in research or authoring documents, it must be verified and the AI tool cited
In general, “authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used”
Any quoted material should be appropriately cited and attributed (ICMJE, 2023).
Consequently, if AI tool output is used as a source in research or authoring documents, the output must be verified, and the AI tool cited.
Be transparent when you use Copilot or other generative AI tools.
Always cite the use of generative AI tools.
- The university’s teaching guidance recommends against using AI-detection tools, citing unreliability and security risks, and notes they are not on the UIT-approved tools list
- For enforcement, it references that academic dishonesty (including generative AI use without citation, documentation, or authorization in the suggested syllabus language) may be subject to academic sanctions under Policy 6-410, but it does not provide AI-specific adjudication procedures beyond that reference
AI-detection tools have repeatedly proven to be unreliable and inaccurate, often yielding false alarms flagging student work. They are not on the list of UIT-approved AI tools and could expose FERPA-secured data to significant security risks.
This includes the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools without citation, documentation, or authorization.
Any student who engages in academic dishonesty or who violates the professional and ethical standards for their profession/discipline may be subject to academic sanctions as per Policy 6-410, Student Academic Performance, Academic Conduct, and Professional and Ethical Conduct.
Institutional & Administrative
- UIT guidance instructs users to monitor and verify outputs, be transparent, and always cite generative AI use
- The university provides guidance for faculty/staff on responsible AI use, emphasizing human review and verification of outputs for accuracy and bias before use
- It also emphasizes that instructors have duties to protect student data and recommends using Microsoft Copilot over other tools for data protection, while noting that use of approved tools is limited by data classification and context (e.g., patient-related activity restrictions)
Consequently, if AI tool output is used as a source in research or authoring documents, the output must be verified, and the AI tool cited.
It is important that when the AI output is used it is reviewed and edited to correct bias that may be present.
Monitor and verify outputs before using them, check sources, and be mindful about when generative AI use is inappropriate.
Be transparent when you use Copilot or other generative AI tools.
As an instructor, you have a duty to your students to ensure their information is protected.
To ensure your data is best protected, we highly recommend using Microsoft Copilot over other generative AI tools like ChatGPT.
- The university states that Microsoft Copilot Chat is the only approved AI chatbot for university business and that certain other generative AI chatbots (e.g., DeepSeek) are not approved
- For research use of non-approved tools, the university requires a procurement and security review process via an AI tool request form and lists specific checks (e.g., sponsor permission, agreements, vendor training restrictions, permitted storage locations)
- It instructs that sensitive or restricted data should never be entered into any AI chatbot (including Copilot), and multiple pages emphasize using university-approved tools, reviewing Rule 4-004C for data classification, and that approved enterprise tools are configured to prevent training on university data; approved enterprise tools are limited to public data and are not approved for restricted or sensitive data
Microsoft Copilot Chat is the only approved AI chatbot for use for university business.
Generative AI chatbots like DeepSeek and similar services are not approved for use.
Sensitive or restricted data, including patient information and confidential university records, should never be entered into any AI chatbot, including Microsoft Copilot Chat.
Before using any tool with university data, please review Rule R4-004C: Data Classification and Encryption.
Currently, approved enterprise tools can only be used with public data, as defined by Rule 4-004C. These tools are not approved for use with restricted or sensitive data.
Approved enterprise tools are configured to prevent training on university data.
First, be sure to understand your data classification (Rule 4-004C) and explore what solutions are already available or could be created using a tool listed as approved on Tools and Infrastructure. If you want to use a different AI tool, complete the AI Tool Form. Tools must go through a procurement and security review process.
Users are prohibited from disclosing protected health information (PHI) because certain legally required contracts, such as a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Business Associate Agreements, are not in place under the U’s Microsoft Copilot license.
Users also should never input other legally restricted data, such as confidential information, student data, privileged communications, trade secrets, personally identifiable information like health or financial data, or unpublished intellectual property.
- It also states the university is working on campus-wide agreements for additional AI solutions and is streamlining reviews for new tools, and notes leaders are analyzing usage data to shape a long-term service model for ChatGPT Edu capabilities
- The university describes an institutional approach centered on responsible AI advancement and adoption, with guidelines intended to provide context for interpreting existing policies and with an expectation that AI use complies with standing university policies
The University of Utah, a hub for innovation and excellence, encourages the responsible advancement and use of AI to support research and education and drive societal impact.
Existing policies designed to protect university data and research apply when using AI tools. The following guidelines provide additional context on how to interpret policies with respect to AI. As the academic, professional, and legal landscapes related to AI change over time, revisions or new policies may be adopted to help community members meet university expectations.
The advancement and use of AI is expected to comply with all relevant standing policies at the University of Utah.
Other AI-powered tools and platforms are in use within our institution, but their approval and governance vary by application and department.
The University of Utah is currently working on campus-wide agreements for additional AI solutions.
The U is streamlining its review process for acquiring new tools.
University leaders are analyzing usage data to understand community needs and shape a long-term, cost‑effective service model that retains as many capabilities as possible.
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 Utah's AI Policies
University of Utah has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university requires transparency in research manuscripts when AI is used (disclosing how and which tool was used) and emphasizes citation/attribution practices to avoid plagiarism. For broader university communications, UIT guidance says to be transparent and to always cite the use of generative AI tools; IT guidance also states that if AI output is used as a source in research or authoring documents, it must be verified and the AI tool cited.
The university’s teaching guidance recommends against using AI-detection tools, citing unreliability and security risks, and notes they are not on the UIT-approved tools list. For enforcement, it references that academic dishonesty (including generative AI use without citation, documentation, or authorization in the suggested syllabus language) may be subject to academic sanctions under Policy 6-410, but it does not provide AI-specific adjudication procedures beyond that reference.
The university states that Microsoft Copilot Chat is the only approved AI chatbot for university business and that certain other generative AI chatbots (e.g., DeepSeek) are not approved. It instructs that sensitive or restricted data should never be entered into any AI chatbot (including Copilot), and multiple pages emphasize using university-approved tools, reviewing Rule 4-004C for data classification, and that approved enterprise tools are configured to prevent training on university data; approved enterprise tools are limited to public data and are not approved for restricted or sensitive data. For research use of non-approved tools, the university requires a procurement and security review process via an AI tool request form and lists specific checks (e.g., sponsor permission, agreements, vendor training restrictions, permitted storage locations).