research
The UAB Publications Service AI policy for articles says AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author, AI-generated scientific content requires author supervision and validation, and any AI use must be explicitly disclosed in the article.
Change log
Tracker history: 0 release records.
Current public record freshness and review state.
5 current claims; 4 official sources.
This page combines all public release diffs for Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Individual release snapshots remain available from their release-specific URLs.
No recorded updates are available in this tracker history.
This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.
Newly extracted claims are tracker additions and are not necessarily newly published by the university. Source snapshot changes show hash changes for the same source URL and are not by themselves policy changes.
Semantic classification for this release diff.
Only recorded comparisons with an exact Claim ID match are shown.
No recorded updates are available in this tracker history.
Tracker history: 0 release records.
Current claim records: 5.
The UAB Publications Service AI policy for articles says AI cannot be listed as an author or co-author, AI-generated scientific content requires author supervision and validation, and any AI use must be explicitly disclosed in the article.
UAB Libraries' AI authorship and attribution guidance says AI cannot have academic or legal authorship; the person using AI remains intellectually responsible and the AI tool should be indicated as a source, not as an author.
UAB Libraries' responsible-use guidance for AI says privacy and data security require reviewing service terms, avoiding leakage of institutional information, and ensuring compliance with GDPR and other regulations.
UAB Libraries publishes a UAB positioning page on AI use in teaching that describes the document as a provisional, living document intended to support reflection on AI in university teaching rather than an exhaustive regulation.
In its AI-in-teaching positioning guidance, UAB argues that ChatGPT and similar tools require rethinking assessment evidence and that tasks a machine can do quickly and well should not form part of an assessment proposal because they would evaluate artificial production.
Official source records: 4.
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 15, 2026, 4:05 AM
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 15, 2026, 4:05 AM
official_policy_page Tracker checked at May 15, 2026, 4:05 AM
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 15, 2026, 4:05 AM