research
University of Antwerp research AI guidelines state that researchers who use AI tools in their research must acknowledge that use, while AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
Review: Agent reviewed
Change log
University of Antwerp
Source-check timeline, source snapshot hashes, claim review state, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed claim evidence.
Change summary
Current public record freshness and review state.
University of Antwerp currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 16, 2026.
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.
Claim/evidence diff preview
Diff-style preview built from current public claim/evidence records. Full old/new source diffs require paired historical snapshots.
University of Antwerp current policy evidence
Inserted lines represent current public claim and evidence records in the source-backed dataset.
+10-0
11 # University of Antwerp AI policy record
2+research: University of Antwerp research AI guidelines state that researchers who use AI tools in their research must acknowledge that use, while AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
3+Evidence (en, 1ee2f66ebba0): In addition to verifying the information provided, researchers must acknowledge the use of AI tools in their research. As mentioned earlier, AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a publication.
4+research: University of Antwerp research guidance says that when more responsibility is placed on an AI system, more human control is required, and that researchers remain responsible for correctness and robustness.
5+Evidence (en, bffbba8e7932): Key concept: the more responsibility is placed on the AI system, the more human control is required afterwards. The responsibility for the correctness and robustness of information ALWAYS lies with the researcher.
6+research: University of Antwerp research AI guidelines identify creating core publication or project-application content without thorough fact-checking and substantive editing, and peer review of others' publications or project applications, as uses to avoid.
7+Evidence (en, 1ee2f66ebba0): Use to be avoided: Creating the core content of publications or project applications without thorough factchecking and additional substantive editing. Peer review of publications or project applications by others.
8+teaching: University of Antwerp Dutch ECHO teaching guidance describes AI-proofing as creating teaching situations where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed, and presents assignment-product changes, process changes, or both as options.
9+Evidence (nl, f57a89b63311): AI-proofing betekent dat je een onderwijssituatie creëert waarin studenten geen gebruik kunnen maken van AI, of waarin ze door de mand vallen als ze dat toch doen terwijl het niet is toegestaan.
10+teaching: University of Antwerp ECHO teaching guidance says lecturers can balance AI-tool use in open-book exams with deep understanding and fair assessment by designing sufficiently complex questions and clarifying whether and how students may use AI tools.
11+Evidence (en, dd51fd44f8e7): This can be done by making your exam questions sufficiently complex and specific, and by going over guidelines with the students beforehand, clarifying whether and how they can/may use AI tools in your open-book exam.
Claim changes
5 claim records
research
University of Antwerp research guidance says that when more responsibility is placed on an AI system, more human control is required, and that researchers remain responsible for correctness and robustness.
Review: Agent reviewed
research
University of Antwerp research AI guidelines identify creating core publication or project-application content without thorough fact-checking and substantive editing, and peer review of others' publications or project applications, as uses to avoid.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
University of Antwerp Dutch ECHO teaching guidance describes AI-proofing as creating teaching situations where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed, and presents assignment-product changes, process changes, or both as options.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
University of Antwerp ECHO teaching guidance says lecturers can balance AI-tool use in open-book exams with deep understanding and fair assessment by designing sufficiently complex questions and clarifying whether and how students may use AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Source snapshots
4 source attributions
AI-proofing
official_guidance checked May 16, 2026
Artificial Intelligence
official_guidance checked May 16, 2026
Guidelines for (Generative) Artificial Intelligence in Research at UAntwerp
official_pdf checked May 16, 2026
Open-book exams: what to be mindful of as a lecturer
official_guidance checked May 16, 2026