Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Heriot-Watt University

Student guide · Task scope and procedure

Match the appeal to the decision and its sent date.

The March 2026 misconduct policy uses its own ten-working-day sent-letter clock. The separate academic appeal route and dated learning guide must not be merged.

De onderstaande richtlijnen zijn in het Engels; officiële bewijsstukken behouden hun oorspronkelijke taal.

Er is nog geen volledige samenvatting van de studentenregels; bekijk de verzamelde uitspraken en bronnen.

Reikwijdte en overgang

The March 2026 misconduct policy uses its own ten-working-day sent-letter clock. The separate academic appeal route and dated learning guide must not be merged.

Match the appeal to the decision and its sent date. hero illustration; exact scope and conditions are in the adjacent source-linked text.
Controleer de regels van je faculteit en opdracht.

Wat gebeurt er als AI-gebruik vragen oproept?

Aanvulling verzameld: 2026-10-08 · Huidige toepasselijkheid niet onafhankelijk bevestigd

Vergelijk het gepubliceerde universiteitsprofiel ↗

Samenvatting momenteel beschikbaar in het Engels

Wanneer vragen ontstaan

Bepaling over AIOfficiële richtlijnenModaliteit: Informatief

Interpretatie van de site

The AY2023–24 student guide allows clearly identified/referenced GenAI, with a spelling/grammar exception unless a course says otherwise. It immediately requires checking actual course purposes; this dated guide is not a current blanket permission. The March2026-updated misconduct policy separately treats misuse as plagiarism or dishonest practice.

Reikwijdte: Students following their course instructions; dated AY2023–24 guide · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: Students following their course instructions; dated AY2023–24 guide · university

1. Use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is permitted provided that such use is clearly identified and referenced. Generative AI spelling and grammar checking (e.g. MS Word, Grammarly) does not need to be referenced unless specifically indicated within the course. 2. The use of generative AI should be referenced using the appropriate referencing format for the piece of work. 3. Any use of artificial intelligence must align with the principles of academic integrity as outlined by the International Centre for Academic Integrity. 4. Courses and programmes within HW may make use of generative AI where it is appropriate to support the learning outcomes, however there is no requirement for a course or
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 19–27
SHA-256: aa9eab1b8d20c0c9b71293ef7ce361fe3f72d498e3eb91dae90d0c56837351b8

How to choose whether to use generative AI 1. If you are thinking about using generative AI (GAI) to support your learning check whether its use is permitted on your course. Only use GAI if it is permitted on your course and only use if for the purposes it is permitted e.g. you might be permitted to use it to research a topic but not to help you write it up. Remember that whether it is permitted or not may be different on each course and will be different from other institutions in which you have
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 43–49
SHA-256: aa9eab1b8d20c0c9b71293ef7ce361fe3f72d498e3eb91dae90d0c56837351b8

• Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools: any suspected misuse of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will be dealt with under this policy. In most instances misuse of GenAI would fall under the definition of plagiarism (either through failing to appropriately reference sources (i.e. GenAI) or presenting work that is not student’s own as if it were) but could also fall under the definition of dishonest practice where appropriate.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 388–393
SHA-256: fc7a0a272ba7f9177d91e912c5f327bba0802d9ee487550c9872979c02a9a2b8

Hoe je kunt reageren

Bepaling over AIOfficiële richtlijnenModaliteit: Informatief

Interpretatie van de site

The dated learning guide recommends saving prompts/outputs and checking citations against trusted sources. It warns generated content can be inaccurate and should not replace the student’s own evaluation. These practices can support a learning record but are not a complete research-integrity policy, named tool entitlement or mandated disciplinary evidence package.

Reikwijdte: Students using the dated learning guide under course rules · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: Students using the dated learning guide under course rules · university

Top tips: 1. As you develop your prompts, reflect on what changes you are making to them and how this is helping you to refine your understanding of the topic. 2. Keep copies of your prompts and outputs for future reference. You may need to provide copies of them in your assignments. 3. Use generative AI that identifies where information is sourced from so that you can check that it has used a real source, them make sure that you do check the source and make your own assessment as to whether the source is appropriate and reliable. How to interpret the output from generative AI There are key factors to bear in mind when using output from generative AI: 1. Critically evaluate the content and cross-check it with trusted academic sources. (You can get help with critical evaluation from the Skills Hub). 2. AI generated content may not be accurate (even where it includes references), the outputs are predictions, they are not facts, and the content may be based on biased or stereotypical perspectives. 3. Double check the accuracy of the content and the references using trusted academic sources e.g. via the University Library to access peer-reviewed journals. 4. As you cross-check the content, look for sources that are Accurate, Current, Objective, Relevant and Named. (Find out more about this ACORN approach from Cite Them Right
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 88–110
SHA-256: aa9eab1b8d20c0c9b71293ef7ce361fe3f72d498e3eb91dae90d0c56837351b8

Herziening en beroep

Advies uit de bronFormele procedureModaliteit: Informatief

Interpretatie van de site

An academic-misconduct appeal is due within ten working days of being sent the formal outcome letter, on evidence-supported approved grounds. Lateness may be rejected. Students admitting the act/accepting proven facts cannot later use procedural-irregularity or manifestly-perverse-decision grounds under 6.8. This is the misconduct route, not the separate Stage1/Stage2 academic-appeal web guidance.

academic misconduct appeal · 10 werkdagen

Student · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Binnen de vermelde termijn. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Reikwijdte: Students appealing an academic-misconduct outcome · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: Students appealing an academic-misconduct outcome · university

6. APPEALS 6.1. Appeals against academic misconduct outcomes will follow the University’s Student Discipline Appeals Policy and Procedures. Appeals against a disciplinary, academic misconduct outcome may be formally requested, subject to the acceptable grounds for an academic misconduct appeal. 6.2. In the academic misconduct outcome letter, the University will inform the appellant of their right to submit an Academic Misconduct Appeal, where appropriate. 6.3. It is not the purpose of an academic misconduct appeal to re-examine a student academic misconduct outcome decision, but to ensure that the outcome decision had been conducted in accordance with the University’s Global Student Academic Misconduct Policy. It is the University’s Discipline Committee’s role to use the academic expertise and judgement of its members to investigate and make decisions to determine if, on the balance of probability, academic misconduct has occurred, or not, in accordance with the University’s Global Student Academic Misconduct Policy. 6.4. The appeal must clearly state the grounds for appeal as specified below and must specify whether the student accepts the statement of facts held to be proven. The burden of proof is on the student to demonstrate the reason for the appeal. 6.5. The students must submit their appeal within ten working days of being sent their formal academic misconduct outcome letter. An appeal may be rejected if it is not submitted within the time limit set out above. If the appeal is rejected for this reason the student will be informed within ten working days of the receipt of their appeal. 6.6. Students cannot appeal on the basis that they believe the outcome was unfair, that they were not satisfied or that they were unhappy with the outcome. Appellants have to demonstrate, with evidence, that the academic misconduct outcome meets one of the grounds for an academic misconduct appeal to be considered. 6.7. Students who are found guilty, or proven to have committed, of an act of academic misconduct can only appeal on the approved grounds below, for which the appellant must provide direct evidence to support their appeal. 6.8. Students who admit to the act of academic misconduct (either during or prior to the Discipline Committee consideration) or accept the statement of facts held to be proven (that is, that the evidence presented in their case was accurate) cannot subsequently appeal on the grounds that there was a procedural irregularity in the process undertaken or that the decision reached was manifestly perverse. 6.9. Acceptable Grounds for an Academic Misconduct Appeal against the decision by a Discipline Committee: Student can only appeal against academic misconduct outcomes on the following grounds. 6.9.1.There was a procedural irregularity in the process undertaken This does not apply in the case of an offence admitted by a student.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 669–719
SHA-256: fc7a0a272ba7f9177d91e912c5f327bba0802d9ee487550c9872979c02a9a2b8

Advies uit de bronOfficiële richtlijnenModaliteit: Informatief

Interpretatie van de site

The separate academic-appeal page uses Stage1 ten working days from becoming aware of the issue, and Stage2 twenty working days from the Stage1 outcome being issued. Late submission without good reason is rejected and Stage2 requires Stage1 completion. FormB users without login must reply to its confirmation with evidence within two working days. These periods must not replace the misconduct clock.

Stage1 academic appeal · 10 werkdagen

Student · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Binnen de vermelde termijn. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Stage2 academic appeal · 20 werkdagen

Student · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Binnen de vermelde termijn. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Reikwijdte: Students in the separate academic-appeal process · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: Students in the separate academic-appeal process · university

How to submit an appeal You must ensure that your appeal: meets one or more of the specific grounds for appeal and is supported by appropriate evidence. Evidence in a language other than English must include a certified translation. Evidence from parents or friends is not considered independent and cannot be used. is submitted within the required timescale: Stage 1 appeals: within 10 working days of the date you became aware of the issue forming the basis of your appeal. Stage 2 appeals: within 20 working days of the Stage 1 outcome being issued. Appeals submitted late without good reason will be rejected. Stage 2 appeals can only be submitted after you have received the official outcome of your Stage 1 appeal. If you have not completed Stage 1, you are not eligible to submit a Stage 2 appeal. Appeal forms All academic appeals must now be submitted using the University’s online appeal forms. There are two types of forms for each Stage of appeal and it is essential that you use the correct one. Appeal Form A is for students with a HWU login and should be the most standard form used which requires you to log in using your Heriot‑Watt email address. You must upload all supporting evidence when submitting the form. Appeals submitted without evidence will not be considered. Appeal Form B is for students without a HWU login and should only be used if you do not currently have a Heriot‑Watt University email address, or your access to your University account is temporarily blocked. This form does not allow you to upload evidence. After submitting you will receive an automated email which you must reply to within two working days, attaching all supporting evidence. If evidence is not received within two working days, your appeal will be dismissed without consideration. Please note that the University does not regard Saturday and Sunday as working days.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 22–33
SHA-256: a1e7653b5a51ea863dcd77495d6a04af6c9f6b5fd5df224b59edf6b21b0e8f7e

Verzameling en versies

Gepubliceerde brongebaseerde aanvullingen. Engelse samenvattingen en oorspronkelijke citaten staan los van het beoordeelde dossier. Mogelijke procedures en uitkomsten zijn geen automatische straffen voor AI. De huidige toepasselijkheid is niet onafhankelijk bevestigd; controleer de bronreikwijdte en versie.

Vergeleken met opgeslagen tekst; geen officiële vertaling

Hashes maken vergelijking van opgeslagen teksten mogelijk; ze bevestigen geen actuele geldigheid of onveranderlijkheid. De onderwerpen vormen geen verplichte volgorde.

AI-tools en toegang

Toegang is geen toestemming voor gebruik bij een beoordeling. Controleer opdrachtregels, toegelaten gebruikers en databeperkingen.

Voor deze universiteit is nog geen betrouwbaar toolrecord vastgesteld. Dat betekent niet dat tools ontbreken of AI verboden is.

Reviewed record

Beoordeelde uitspraken

Beoordeelde uitspraken: 2

Academische integriteitBeoordeelde uitspraken: 1

Academic Integrity

Heriot-Watt University's 2025 Student Academic Misconduct Policy states that suspected misuse of generative artificial intelligence tools will be dealt with under that policy.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen94%

Genormaliseerde waarde: suspected_genai_misuse_handled_under_academic_misconduct_policy

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools: any suspected misuse of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will be dealt with under this policy.

Gelokaliseerde weergave only

The policy treats suspected GenAI misuse as a matter under the Student Academic Misconduct Policy.

Regels voor AI-toolsBeoordeelde uitspraken: 1

Ai Tool Treatment

Heriot-Watt's student AI guidance for AY23-24 says generative AI use is permitted when the use is clearly identified and referenced, while students should check whether and how it is permitted on each course.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen92%

Genormaliseerde waarde: generative_ai_permitted_if_identified_referenced_and_course_allows

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
Use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is permitted provided that such use is clearly identified and referenced.

Gelokaliseerde weergave only

The student guidance permits GAI use when it is clearly identified and referenced.

Source record

Officiële bronnen

Bronnen: 2

Open de lijst met officiële bronnen
Dossierinformatie, JSON en bronvermelding
BeoordelenAI-ondersteunde beoordelingVertrouwen94%Status van momentopnameNiet gepubliceerdJSONOpenbare JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "Heriot-Watt University AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked May 16, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/heriot-watt-university

Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.

Wijzigingslogboek openen

Saved 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.