Policy presence
King's College London has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
London, United Kingdom
King's College London
King's College London has 12 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 12 reviewed claims. Last checked May 10, 2026.
King's College London AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
King's College London has 12 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions, including 12 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 10, 2026. Discovery context: King's College London is listed as QS 2026 rank 31.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists King's College London as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 10, 2026 and last changed on May 10, 2026. The record contains 12 source-backed claims, including 12 reviewed claims, from 6 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/kcl.json. The entity-level confidence is 95%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page 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.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
King's College London has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
King's College London has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
King's College London has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
King's College London has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Academic integrity
King's College London has 5 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
King's College London has 4 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: required.
Named AI services
King's College London has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Teaching guidance
King's College London has 3 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
King's College London has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
King's College London has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
12 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
King's College London does not ban the use of generative AI tools by students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1No, King's does not ban the use of any type of AI. It is increasingly part of the wider world and is changing the nature of many aspects of life including the jobs you are in or will progress into.
Academic Integrity
At King's College London, inappropriate use of generative AI without attribution is considered academic misconduct and can result in penalties ranging from formal warnings to expulsion.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Inappropriate use without attribution is considered academic misconduct. For further details please see the Academic Misconduct Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedure. Potential penalties can range from formal warnings, resubmitting the coursework, suspension or expulsion.
Academic Integrity
King's College London does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but does require explicit acknowledgement of AI tool use in coursework.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1King's College London, unlike some other universities, does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list for much the same reason you would not be expected to cite a search engine, a student essay website or be over-dependent on synoptic, secondary source material. However, as we learn more about the capabilities and limitations of these tools and as we work together to evolve our own critical AI literacies, we do expect you to be explicit in acknowledging your use of generative AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot (available via your KCL account), Google Gemini, ChatGPT or any other media generated through other generative AI tools.
Academic Integrity
At King's College London, submitting AI-generated text as one's own without written departmental permission is considered misconduct under third-party involvement or text manipulation offences.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Submitting text generated by technology/artificial intelligence as their own, without written permission from their department is considered misconduct under the offences of third-party involvement or text manipulation, if it provides undue advantage or interferes with assessment of the student's own understanding.
Academic Integrity
King's College London has disabled the AI detection feature in Turnitin due to concerns about reliability and false positives.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1King's took the decision not to enable the AI detection % in Turnitin due to concerns about its reliability and potential for false positives. As things stand AI detection is not an option that is available to us.
Teaching
King's College London supports considered use of generative AI and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1King's College London supports considered use of generative AI, and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.
Ai Tool Treatment
Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's College London students via their KCL Microsoft account and comes with commercial data protection under the university's enterprise license.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Our Enterprise license means that use of Copilot comes with commercial data protection and is therefore a more secure alternative to other generative AI tools.
Teaching
King's College London subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on generative AI in education, including supporting AI literacy, adapting teaching and assessment, and ensuring academic integrity.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1King's contributed to and subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on the use of generative AI tools in education: Universities will support students and staff to become AI-literate; Staff should be equipped to support students to use generative AI tools effectively and appropriately in their learning experience; Universities will adapt teaching and assessment to incorporate the ethical use of generative AI and support equal access; Universities will ensure academic rigour and integrity is upheld; Universities will work collaboratively to share best practice as the technology and its application in education evolves.
Research
King's College London permits doctoral students to use generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes for assistive purposes such as clarifying writing, provided use is declared and consistent with guidance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Yes, students are permitted to make use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes. However, where a student's use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing exceeds the circumstances permitted by this guidance, they will risk breaching the Academic Misconduct Policy.
Research
King's College London doctoral examiners must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool or use external AI detection software when assessing the thesis.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool, or make use of external generative AI detection software when assessing the thesis.
Teaching
King's College London defines four broad levels of acceptable AI use in assessments: minimal, limited/selective, open, and embedded, with programme and module leaders adjusting to assessment specifics.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1We have suggested four broad levels that your Programme and Module leaders may adjust to the specifics of an assessment: 1. Minimal - Includes routine and established use of tools such as auto transcription, spell checkers, grammar check. 2. Limited/selective - Use for clearly delineated tasks as appropriate/allowed/recommended. 3. Open - No specific restrictions but with requirement to track key stages/tools utilised. 4. Embedded - AI use is a feature of the assessment itself.
Ai Tool Treatment
Microsoft Copilot is the primary institutional generative AI tool available to all King's College London students and staff via KCL Microsoft login credentials.
Review: Agent reviewed
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Please note that Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's students with your KCL Microsoft log in credentials. Make sure you are logged into your KCL account and switch 'safe search' to 'moderate' to use it.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
6 source attribution
Academic Misconduct Policy
kcl.ac.uk
Generative AI - Student guidance
kcl.ac.uk
Generative AI: context and definitions
kcl.ac.uk
Generative AI: Guidance for doctoral students, supervisors and examiners
kcl.ac.uk
King's guidance on generative AI for teaching, assessment and feedback
kcl.ac.uk
Macro-level guidance: University-wide principles and policy
kcl.ac.uk
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.