À faire
- Follow the assessment specification and declaration requirement.
- Prepare evidence for the appropriate review route.
- Seek independent Students’ Union advice.

London, United Kingdom
Student guide · Task scope and procedure
Taught-programme rules require assessment permission and declaration if required. Category 1/investigative appeals and AOP appeals differ; the source’s calendar days exclude University closures.
Le guide ci-dessous est en anglais ; les preuves officielles restent dans leur langue d’origine.
Aucun résumé complet des règles pour les étudiants n’est disponible ; consultez les énoncés et sources recueillis.
Taught-programme rules require assessment permission and declaration if required. Category 1/investigative appeals and AOP appeals differ; the source’s calendar days exclude University closures.



Complément collecté: 2026-10-08 · Applicabilité actuelle non confirmée indépendamment
Résumé disponible actuellement en anglais
Interprétation du site
The taught-programme procedure treats AI-produced work, AI analysis/evaluation/calculations and copied or paraphrased GenAI text as misconduct unless the assessment specification permits it and it is appropriately declared if required. The file’s cover says v1.02, effective September 2025, approved February 2026; the URL still contains v1-1.
Portée: Taught programmes; postgraduate research has separate procedures · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Preuves de détection · Soutien et aménagements
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
3. Definitions
3.1 Any improper activity or behaviour by a student which may give that student, or another student,
an unfair academic advantage in assessment is considered to be assessment misconduct. Work
submitted by a student for an assessment must always be their own.
Assessment misconduct includes but is not limited to:
• Attempting to complete any assessment by unfair means;
• Using published work without appropriate referencing;
• Copying the coursework or time-constrained assessment/examination of another;
• Allowing coursework to be used or copied;
• Re-using work previously submitted for another course or programme of study;
• Submitting or using work generated by another entity as your own, e.g. computer
file/program/design/drawings/results;
• Submitting work produced in whole or part by Artificial Intelligence (AI) unless i) allowed by
the assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if required).
• Using AI to undertake analysis, evaluation or calculations, unless i) allowed by the
assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if required).
• Copying or paraphrasing content created by Generative AI to generate assessment text
unless i) allowed by the assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if
required).;Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 132–152
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Effective from September 2025
Document Owner: Assistant Director, Student & Academic Services (Registry)
Principal Contact: Jack Beresford-Zahra, Academic Registry Manager, SAS
Approving Body: Student Success Board
Date of Approval: February 2026
Date Effective From: September 2025
New students
Applies to:
Continuing students
(delete as appropriate)
Partner provision
Review Date: Every 3 years or earlier where required
Version: v1.02Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 6–19
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Interprétation du site
The July 2025 Assessment and Feedback Policy requires staff to provide students via the VLE with the GenAI referencing guide, effective-use video and Declaration of AI use. These resources support understanding; they do not grant every use in every assessment.
Portée: Staff supporting students in assessment · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Preuves de détection · Soutien et aménagements
Portée: Staff supporting students in assessment · university
31. Staff will provide students with the university’s guide on referencing generative AI,
video on using AI effectively and Declaration of AI use via the VLE to support
students’ understanding of acceptable AI usage in assessments.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 306–308
SHA-256: 430f11075e69f4076ca45c5a99a26737297f0926b6e1167ab39d49832127beae
Interprétation du site
For suspected prohibited AI-generated work, the assessor alerts the module leader and may discuss the work with the student to compare demonstrated learning. A CP1 is completed if reason for suspicion remains. Suspicion and a CP1 referral are not a finding or automatic penalty.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Preuves de détection · Soutien et aménagements
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
5.2 In the case of suspected use of artificial intelligence to generate work in ways that contravene this
policy, the assessor will alert the module leader. They may have a conversation with the student
to assess whether the learning demonstrated in the assignment is consistent with that
demonstrated by the student in person. Where there is still reason to believe that the policy has
been contravened, the assessor/module leader will complete a CP1.
5.3 For all other assessments, if the assessor thinks that a student has committed an assessment
offence, they must make all reasonable efforts to preserve and retain evidence securely and will
complete a CP1.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 214–222
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Interprétation du site
For a Category 1 or Investigative Interview sanction, an appeal statement goes to the stated email within seven calendar days of outcome notification. Grounds are material procedural error, unreasonable decision/disproportionate sanction or substantial previously unavailable information. Clause 9.3 says late statements will not be considered and the sanction will remain. Clause 1.5 generally expects students to meet procedural deadlines unless compelling independent evidence explains why they could not be met. Both provisions are retained; this is not an automatic extension or a guarantee that a late appeal will be accepted. The source’s closure-day exclusion applies, and AOP appeals follow a separate route.
Étudiant · Obligatoire dans cette procédure
Dans le délai indiqué. Vérifiez le point de départ, la portée et les exceptions dans le résumé et le texte original.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
Clause 1.5 provides a general deadline exception where compelling independent evidence shows why deadlines could not be met. Clause 9.3 separately says statements received after seven calendar days will not be considered and the sanction remains. Retain both without guaranteeing late acceptance or automatic extension; this route excludes AOP appeals.
9. Review and appeal procedures
Review of Category 1 or Investigative Interview outcomes
9.1 Where a sanction is applied following a Category 1 meeting or Investigative Interview outcome
the student may appeal the decision on one or more of the following grounds:
a) the assessment misconduct process was not applied correctly or parts within it were
applied incorrectly, and the resulting procedural error has had a significant negative
impact on the decision made;
b) that the decision reached was unreasonable and/or a disproportionate sanction has
been imposed;
c) substantial new material information/evidence is available which they were unable to
provide before the outcome was reached.
9.2 The student should be informed of the outcome of their right to appeal. The student must send an
appeal statement to the email address given within 7 calendar days of notification of the outcome,
consideration will then be given to whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to proceed.
9.3 If the statement is received after 7 calendar days, the student will be informed that their appeal
will not be considered, and that the sanction will remain, and the student will be issued with a
Completion of Procedures statement including details of the OIA scheme.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 390–408
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
1.6 All timescales referred to in this document are measured in ‘calendar days’ which means every
day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays, except for university closure days such as
public holidays and Christmas closures. Full details of term dates and university closures can be
found here https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/term-dates.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 82–85
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
1.5 Students are expected to keep to the deadlines within this procedure unless compelling
independent evidence is provided to show why deadlines could not be met. The University is also
expected to meet our deadlines but there will occasionally be times when we are unable to do so
for good reason. If so, the student will be given the reasons and kept informed of progress.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 77–80
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Interprétation du site
Assessment Offences Panel outcomes use a separate Academic Appeal route with procedural-error, substantial-new-evidence, unreasonable-decision or disproportionate-penalty grounds. This passage links to another procedure and does not give its filing period; the seven-day Category 1 clock is not transferred to AOP.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
Appeal against an Assessment Offences Panel outcome
9.10 The outcome notification following an Assessment Offences Panel (AOP) will confirm that
students may submit an Academic Appeal against the outcome on one or more of the following
grounds:
a) the Assessment Misconduct process was not applied correctly, and the resulting procedural
error has had a significant negative impact on the decision made.
b) substantial new evidence has come to light.
c) the decision reached was unreasonable based on the available evidence.
d) the penalty imposed was disproportionate.
Full details of how to submit an Academic Appeal can be found here.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 444–455
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Interprétation du site
After a Completion of Procedures letter, an eligible dissatisfied student may complain to OIA within twelve months of the letter’s date. Free independent advice and advocacy are available from Greenwich Students’ Union; eligibility and internal stages still matter.
Étudiant · Obligatoire dans cette procédure
Dans le délai indiqué. Vérifiez le point de départ, la portée et les exceptions dans le résumé et le texte original.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
13. External adjudication
13.1 If you have been issued with a Completion of Procedures letter and you remain unhappy with the
final decision of the University, you may be able to complain to the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator. http://www.oiahe.org.uk/.
Assessment Misconduct Procedure 9
13.2 You will need to send a Scheme Application Form to the OIA within twelve months of the date of
the Completion of Procedures letter. A Scheme Application Form can be downloaded from the
OIA website http://www.oiahe.org.uk/.
14. Advice and support
Free independent advice and advocacy is available from the Greenwich Students’ Union. Further
details can be found at https://www.greenwichsu.co.uk/adviceVoir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 486–502
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Interprétation du site
Greenwich may viva a random sample to check learning; allegations need a reasoned, evidenced decision on the balance of probabilities, with the burden on the University. Its “calendar days” exceptionally exclude University closure days including public holidays and Christmas closures. No detector threshold or automatic finding is given.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Portée: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
1.3 The university reserves the right to viva a random sample of students to check that they can
demonstrate a level of achievement relating to the assessment criteria consistent with the quality
of work they have submitted for assessment. Where this or other factors give rise to allegations of
assessment misconduct, they will be considered under this Procedure and may result in a penalty
being imposed.
1.4 The standard of proof applied in operating this procedure is the balance of probabilities. This
means the investigation needs only to conclude that it is likely that misconduct occurred, rather
than requiring that the evidence be indisputable that misconduct has occurred. Decisions must be
supported by a rationale and evidence. The burden lies on the university to show, on the balance
of probabilities, that the acts constituting the alleged assessment misconduct occurred.
1.5 Students are expected to keep to the deadlines within this procedure unless compelling
independent evidence is provided to show why deadlines could not be met. The University is also
expected to meet our deadlines but there will occasionally be times when we are unable to do so
for good reason. If so, the student will be given the reasons and kept informed of progress.
1.6 All timescales referred to in this document are measured in ‘calendar days’ which means every
day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays, except for university closure days such as
public holidays and Christmas closures. Full details of term dates and university closures can be
found here https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/term-dates.Voir la source officielle ↗Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 65–85
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13
Compléments publiés fondés sur des sources. Les résumés anglais et citations originales sont séparés du dossier vérifié. Les procédures et résultats possibles ne sont pas des sanctions automatiques liées à l’IA. L’applicabilité actuelle n’a pas été confirmée indépendamment ; vérifiez la portée et la version de la source.
Comparaison au texte conservé ; traduction non officielle
Les empreintes permettent de comparer les textes conservés ; elles ne certifient ni leur validité actuelle ni leur immuabilité. Ces thèmes ne sont pas une séquence obligatoire.
L’accès à un outil ne vaut pas autorisation pour une évaluation. Vérifiez les consignes, les personnes éligibles et les restrictions de données.
Enregistrement archivé ; consultez la source officielle pour l’accès actuel. Les informations d’accès et les citations conservent leur langue originale.
Citation originale
University of Greenwich student AI guidance encourages students to use AI to aid learning, while telling students to acknowledge AI use in assignments by adding a declaration and not to copy and paste directly from an AI tool for submitted English-language work.Citation originale
However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool as your written English is an assessed element of all work written in the English language, and submitted work must always be your own.Citation originale
However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool ...Reviewed record
5 énoncés examinés
Academic Integrity
Valeur normalisée: staff_provide_genai_reference_guide_video_and_ai_declaration_vle
Preuve originale
Preuve 1Staff will provide students with the university’s guide on referencing generative AI, video on using AI effectively and Declaration of AI use via the VLE to support students’ understanding of acceptable AI usage in assessments.
Affichage localisé only
Staff will provide students with the university guide on referencing generative AI, a video on using AI effectively, and the Declaration of AI use via the VLE.
Enseignement
Valeur normalisée: assessment_design_integrity_standards_with_student_genai_access
Preuve originale
Preuve 1Learning technologies shall be used with consideration of potential biases and limitations of automation. Assessment will be designed to ensure that integrity and standards are maintained where students have access to generative AI, without sacrificing the importance of authenticity of assessment and pedagogic practice. Staff are encouraged to incorporate generative AI as a learning tool and equally facilitate responsible AI usage from students.
Affichage localisé only
Assessment will be designed to ensure integrity and standards are maintained where students have access to generative AI, and staff are encouraged to incorporate generative AI as a learning tool while facilitating responsible student use.
Confidentialité
Valeur normalisée: studiosity_privacy_notice_data_fields_and_independent_controller
Preuve originale
Preuve 1The University of Greenwich processes the following personal data about you if you opt to use the Studiosity service: First name, last name, email address; Course; Student ID; Content of your interactions with Studiosity tutors ... Studiosity is an independent data controller based in Australia.
Affichage localisé only
For opted-in Studiosity users, Greenwich lists personal data including name, email, course, student ID, and interaction content, and says Studiosity is an independent data controller based in Australia.
Ai Tool Treatment
Valeur normalisée: student_ai_learning_use_with_declaration_and_no_direct_copy_paste
Preuve originale
Preuve 1We encourage you to use AI in your studies ... However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool as your written English is an assessed element of all work written in the English language, and submitted work must always be your own. ... If you use AI in the process of undertaking your assignment, for example to create an outline of your assignment or to summarize articles, you should acknowledge this by adding a declaration at the end of your work.
Affichage localisé only
We encourage you to use AI in your studies ... However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool ... If you use AI in the process of undertaking your assignment ... you should acknowledge this by adding a declaration at the end of your work.
Ai Tool Treatment
Valeur normalisée: studiosity_plus_ai_writing_feedback_supported_service
Preuve originale
Preuve 1The University has teamed up with Studiosity+ to bring you an online service that can help improve your academic writing skills. Studiosity+ will allow you to upload almost complete drafts of your essays, reports and other written assessment types. Studiosity+ uses AI to generate feedback on your writing. The AI has been trained by subject specialists, and specialists monitor the feedback you receive.
Affichage localisé only
Studiosity+ is described as an online academic-writing support service that uses AI to generate writing feedback, with AI trained by subject specialists and feedback monitored by specialists.
Source record
3 sources
gre.ac.uk
gre.ac.uk
gre.ac.uk
Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "University of Greenwich AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked May 20, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-greenwich
Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.
Journal des modifications ouvertSaved from University AI Policy Tracker. This record summarizes the cited sources; it is not an official university statement or assessment permission. Source and review dates are listed above. Hashes identify retained content, not authorization.