Journal des modifications

Royal Holloway, University of London

Source-backed change history with no release-to-release policy diff rows recorded yet; current claims, official sources, review state, and freshness remain visible across 0 public release records.

Révision: Révisé par un agentVérifié pour la dernière fois16 mai 2026Dernière modification16 mai 2026Affirmations7Sources8Enregistrements de version0

Page universitaire JSON public Rapport mensuel Index des universités

Royal Holloway, University of London currently has 7 source-backed claim records and 8 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: 16 mai 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

Cette page combine toutes les différences de publication publique pour Royal Holloway, University of London. Les instantanés des versions individuelles restent disponibles via leurs URL spécifiques à la version.

Aucune ligne de différence de politique entre les versions n'est encore enregistrée pour cette université. La page suit toujours les affirmations actuelles étayées par des sources, les attributions de sources officielles, l'état d'examen, la fraîcheur des sources et les JSON publics pour la découverte et la citation.

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.

Les affirmations récemment extraites sont des ajouts au suivi et ne sont pas nécessairement de nouvelles publications de l'université. Les changements d'instantané source montrent des variations de hachage pour la même URL source et ne constituent pas en eux-mêmes des changements de politique.

Texte de la politique0Récemment extraits0Preuve0Instantanés source0Texte source0Source ajoutée0Source supprimée0

11 # Royal Holloway, University of London AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: Royal Holloway academic misconduct regulations list requesting or engaging an artificial intelligence tool to write or rewrite work for unfair advantage, and presenting AI-generated content as one’s own unless authorised and acknowledged, as examples of assessment offences.
3+Evidence (en, 22a9f7526500): Commissioning, which is requesting or engaging another person or artificial intelligence tool whether paid or unpaid to write or rewrite work in order to obtain an unfair advantage for oneself. Presenting content generated by artificial intelligence tools as your own unless specifically authorised in writing as part of the assessment brief and appropriately acknowledged.
4+research: Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance for postgraduate researchers says AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose, or other academic content, and that researchers are responsible for every output they submit.
5+Evidence (en, 3b1a0e17e1f5): Originality: AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose or other academic content. Transparency: declare that any AI use is within the permitted guidance outlined in this document. Accountability: you, the student, are responsible for every output that you submit.
6+academic_integrity: Royal Holloway requires students to include declaration statements for generative AI use or non-use, and says a list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.
7+Evidence (en, 760f945e2237): Explicit acknowledgment of use of generative AI tools such as Large Language Models like Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or ChatGPT or any other media generated through similar tools is required. If you have not used any such tools in any way a declaration statement is still required. Prompt List: A list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.
8+privacy: Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance says postgraduate researchers should not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party AI tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required.
9+Evidence (en, 3b1a0e17e1f5): Data protection: do not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required. Uploading Personal, Special-category, or Confidential Data to Public AI Services: Any content that could identify individuals, organisations, or sensitive locations. No.
10+ai_tool_treatment: Royal Holloway tells Foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate taught students that module assessment briefs take precedence for AI use; if a brief says AI is not permitted, students must not use it and must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.
11+Evidence (en, 8fac02163e39): This guidance provides a broad overview, but all students must follow specific instructions in module assessment briefs as local guidance always takes precedence. If the brief says AI is not permitted, you must not use it. You must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.
12+ai_tool_treatment: Royal Holloway recommends Microsoft Copilot for generative AI use when students log in with Royal Holloway account details, and warns students to be extremely careful when entering data into other generative AI tools.
13+Evidence (en, 4bcf2424c1fb): From the many generative AI tools, Royal Holloway recommends that you use Microsoft Copilot, logging in with your Royal Holloway account details. Please be extremely careful when entering data into a generative AI tool: this is particularly important if you are using one other than MS Copilot and your RHUL login.
14+source_status: The official AI guidance verified in this crawl is scoped to Foundation, undergraduate, postgraduate taught students, and postgraduate researchers; this crawl did not verify a separate staff-wide binding AI teaching policy.
15+Evidence (en, 8fac02163e39): Guidance for our Foundation, Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Students. This guidance outlines how students at the University may and may not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in their academic work.

Historique des versions

0 public release diffs

Modifications d'affirmations

7 Affirmation enregistrements

academic_integrity

Royal Holloway academic misconduct regulations list requesting or engaging an artificial intelligence tool to write or rewrite work for unfair advantage, and presenting AI-generated content as one’s own unless authorised and acknowledged, as examples of assessment offences.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance96%Preuve1Languesen

research

Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance for postgraduate researchers says AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose, or other academic content, and that researchers are responsible for every output they submit.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance95%Preuve1Languesen

academic_integrity

Royal Holloway requires students to include declaration statements for generative AI use or non-use, and says a list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance94%Preuve1Languesen

privacy

Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance says postgraduate researchers should not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party AI tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance94%Preuve1Languesen

ai_tool_treatment

Royal Holloway tells Foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate taught students that module assessment briefs take precedence for AI use; if a brief says AI is not permitted, students must not use it and must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance93%Preuve1Languesen

ai_tool_treatment

Royal Holloway recommends Microsoft Copilot for generative AI use when students log in with Royal Holloway account details, and warns students to be extremely careful when entering data into other generative AI tools.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance92%Preuve1Languesen

source_status

The official AI guidance verified in this crawl is scoped to Foundation, undergraduate, postgraduate taught students, and postgraduate researchers; this crawl did not verify a separate staff-wide binding AI teaching policy.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance78%Preuve2Languesen