University of Kentucky

Conditions et exceptions

Follow the actual course and assignment policy; these are model statements rather than proof of course adoption.

It is up to the instructor to decide whether student use of generative AI (GenAI) is appropriate for their courses and to what extent. When making that decision, instructors should take into consideration the learning goals of the course, the content, and the extent to which that course can contribute to students' general experience and understanding of AI. For extensive, research-informed recommendations from UK ADVANCE, be sure to visit their website. Instructors might also consider an assignment-by-assignment approach to identifying when generative AI is allowed. Consider using the Student AI Use scale as a possible resource for communicating specifically about what types of AI-augmented actions are appropriate and when at a course level or for each major assignments. Have conversations with students about your policy to offer transparency around disciplinary approaches to AI and to invite them to think critically about AI use.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 46–47
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

Conditional Use In some cases, instructors might want to help students explore GenAI in the context of their course and are, therefore, open to student use of AI in specified instances. CELT refers to these types of policies as “conditional AI use.” The exact policies outlining conditional use of AI vary widely based on learning goals and uses. For instance, instructors may choose to allow student use of AI: for specified assignments only; for specific stages or tasks in preparation for all assignments (i.e. brainstorming, proofreading, etc. but not drafting); or for in-class activities only (not for completing individual or group assignments). Instructors may also specify which GenAI tools students may or may not use. In most cases for assignment use, instructors should provide students with guidance about how to cite and acknowledge their use of AI. For instructors interested in considering possible ways to incorporate AI into their teaching, contact CELT for a consultation. Example 1 - Use for Some Assignments Students will be permitted to use GenAI tools for specific assignments only. When GenAI tools can be used on an assignment it will be explicitly stated in the directions. At times, instructions may also indicate the specific AI tool you can use. The goal of allowing the use of GenAI for these assignments is to make space for critical engagement and practice with these tools. Students must cite any use of GenAI for any part of an assignment (from idea generation to text creation to text editing) using the guidelines from [insert name and link to relevant style guide]. Any use of AI beyond the assignments and tasks the instructor approves will be considered misuse. Also, failure to cite AI materials appropriately will be considered misuse and consequences will follow University policies. Example 2 - Use for In-Class Activities Only Students will be permitted to use Generative AI in this course only for specified tasks as designated by the instructor. Because Generative AI is an influential tool for the future of [insert discipline], it is important that students engage with that tool in thoughtful and inquisitive ways. As a result, there will be some specifically designed in-class activities where students are asked to use [insert GenAI tool name (i.e., ChatGPT, Bing, etc.)] to critically engage with its evolving abilities and restrictions. Please note that while we may use AI for some in-class activities, students may not use GenAI tools for any other assignment submissions. Students who do not wish to sign up for [insert Gen AI tool] for in-class activities will be allowed to pair up with another student who has an account. Students are not required to give credit to AI tools for these activities as all students will be expected to use [insert tool name] in the same ways. Misuse of AI in the context of this course includes submitting AI-generated outputs (in their original form or re-written) as your own work on class assignments. That type of misuse may be considered academic misconduct and consequences will follow University policies. Example 3 - Specific Tasks Only & Acknowledgement In this course you are permitted to use Generative AI for planning, organizing, outlining, brainstorming, and copy-editing your work for any major or minor assignment. However, you are not permitted to use GenAI for composition, writing, or content generation. In other words, the final product that you turn in should be at least 75% [or other %] your work. This course invites students to use Generative AI in augmentative ways to encourage a healthy curiosity and skepticism about the tools and how they work. Students who use AI for their assignments must include the following statement at the end of the document/with references or works cited. “I acknowledge my use of Generative AI in the preparation of this assignment in the form of [insert GenAI tool name]. The [GenAI tool name] was used in the following ways: [List and explain all uses including steps to clarify, fact-check, and cite]. Specifically, the AI-authored contributions to this submission include: [list specific contributions]. I take full responsibility for the accuracy of information informed by the AI tools I used." Students should also include in-text citations of any AI-informed information using guidelines from [insert style guide].

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 65–82
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

Conditions et exceptions

Data privacy review through UK ITS GRC before Protected Data input.

PHI only after UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee confirmation of HIPAA compliance and PHI input support; open-source non-public/proprietary data only with UK ITS GRC approval.

What privacy concerns arise in using generative AI in research? Inputting any research data into a generative AI tool renders that data available in the AI tool and its use. Accordingly, data privacy review is needed before any Protected Data (AR 10.7) is entered into a generative AI tool (whether the tool is publicly available or not) to ensure that the tool’s data privacy and security program complies with all applicable laws and university guidelines. This process can be initiated by contacting the UK Information Technology Services Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) team at GRC@uky.edu. Generative AI tools that are public and available for use by anyone pose elevated risks to privacy when entering research data, in particular protected health information (PHI), personal identifying information or other personal information protected by law such as FERPA, and any proprietary information. Unless the UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee has confirmed the AI tool is HIPAA compliant and supports PHI input, do not put research data containing PHI into a generative AI tool or other software. Additionally, other non-public or proprietary research data should not be placed into an open-source AI tool without UK ITS GRC approval.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 161–178
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

If use of AI is allowed in the course, the policy should include specific instructions for how to cite and acknowledge that use if required. Explore the recommendations from your discipline's preferred style guide for suggestions. Consider asking students to include "Acknowledgement of Use" statements where appropriate. Recommended language for such statements can be found in the examples below. Alternatives to AI Use Questions about ethics and impact of AI use are still being negotiated and discovered. In addition, questions about data privacy remain unanswered at this time. With that in mind, instructors should make accommodations for students who wish not to register for or use those tools (even when required for an assignment). Some examples of alternatives might include allowing students to work in groups or allowing students to use search engines instead of AI and compare results. Given existing questions about privacy, students should never be asked to input personal or private information into a GenAI tool.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 108–110
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

No Use Instructors may decide that student use of Generative AI is detrimental to their ability to meet course learning objectives and, thus, opt for a “no AI use” policy. In such cases, the syllabus AI policy statement should include a rationale for that choice to encourage student compliance. It should also include a clear indication of what constitutes misuse and what steps will be taken if misuse occurs. Keep in mind, though, that AI detectors have been shown to be ineffective (read more about the limitations of AI detectors in the ADVANCE guidelines).

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 56–57
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

Conditions et exceptions

Use institutional myUK request path and linkblue account; actual course policy still controls assessment use.

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Jan. 29, 2026) — Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff, University of Kentucky Information Technology Services announced. The initiative is part of UK’s ongoing commitment to innovation through its Commonwealth AI Transdisciplinary Strategy (CATS AI) in partnership with Microsoft. This expands access to powerful AI tools that support learning, productivity, research and service. Copilot is an AI-powered tool designed to support work and learning, whether it means drafting documents, summarizing information, brainstorming ideas or improving productivity in Microsoft 365. Getting access is simple: Log in to the myUK portal Go to My Account > My Access Select Request Access and choose Copilot Your license will be assigned to your linkblue account. It may take 24-72 hours for the update to appear in your Microsoft tenant. A step-by-step guide is available in the Tech Help Center to help you get started. If you have questions or need support, the Tech Help Center team is ready to assist.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 18–26
SHA-256: e8cec78e8241d442ba195a9f3fc89e5308746ea9d36cdfffc5b4dbd5fc7e4388

Who is responsible for content generated by AI? Generative AI cannot be designated authorship as it cannot be held accountable for issues such as research misconduct/plagiarism or intellectual property misuse. Researchers are responsible for the content and accuracy of all aspects of their work. Human authors must take responsibility for the content and the accuracy, factualness, or veracity of the data and analysis presented in the research. Generative AI enables potential use in research but “it does not excuse our judgment or accountability.”2 How should generative AI use be described in reported research results? Journals have different rules for reporting the use of generative AI in manuscripts. Generally, journals, including those by the publishing houses of Taylor and Francis and Springer have stated that input from AI must be detailed in the Materials and Methods section, Acknowledgement section, or similar section for transparency. Any publication of reported results should disclose the use of a generative AI tool, which tool, for what parts of the publication and how it was used. Other best practices include indicating the specific language model in addition to the generative AI tool, as well as the date(s) of use, e.g., “ChatGPT Plus, GPT-4, 19-20 September 2023.”

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 98–116
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

Can generative AI be used for theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams? The use of generative AI in theses, dissertations (and the research underlying them), and comprehensive exams will differ by discipline in what is considered appropriate. Check with your disciplinary authorities, organizations, funding agencies, and publications for a more context- specific understanding of how generative AI may be used in ways that are referenced, disclosed, and/or cited appropriately. Additionally, make sure to consult all requirements, guidelines, and regulations for theses, dissertations, and comprehensive exams (e.g., in the department, college, and Graduate School), as well as the student’s chair or adviser.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 71–79
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

Conditions et exceptions

Separate Ombud web guide mentions10 unspecified days for zero/course-failure determinations with no trigger definition in the captured page; no date calculation.

These appeal procedures apply whenever a formal hearing has reached a decision for an alleged violation of Academic Code. B. Grounds for Appeal Any respondent who has been found responsible by a hearing panel may appeal either the finding of responsibility, the sanction imposed or both. The University may not appeal. C. The Notice of Appeal A respondent may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the Academic Ombud within seven (7) business days of the decision determining the sanction. The notice must state (a) the grounds of the appeal, and (b) whether the respondent is appealing the finding of responsibility, the sanction imposed or both. Appeals not filed in a timely manner will not be accepted or considered.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 193–210
SHA-256: 11358b7ed07b41e47efe5365f794bde4cea213028969b8b9b2c68b0ef74bd22d

The Academic Appeals Panel hears the following types of appeals: a final grade, dismissal, or different University decision (students have 90 days to contact the Academic Ombud to appeal to the Academic Appeals Panel); an academic offense determination imposing a penalty of zero on the assignment or failure in the course (students have 10 days to contact the Academic to appeal to the Academic Appeals Panel). a decision by the Academic Hearing Panel (students have 7 days to contact the Academic Ombud to appeal the Academic Hearing Panel's decision). Academic Hearing Panel A formal hearing by the Academic Hearing Panel is required: if the penalty to be imposed is harsher than failure in a course. A hearing panel will be convened to review the evidence to determine if an offense occurred, and if so, the proper penalty to be applied. if a student is found responsible by the Academic Hearing Panel, the student may appeal their decision to the Academic Appeals Panel by filing a notice of appeal with the Academic Ombud within seven (7) business days of the Academic Hearing Panel's decision.

Collecté: 2026-10-08 · 57–64
SHA-256: 904eb529a432dda7ab6a79c1e96cac7b9733a62c0f84700728808a8bf6113194