Queen's University Belfast

Warunki i wyjątki

Web label/PDF version discrepancy; no silent year upgrade.

This section brings together tailored QUB guidance for staff and students. This includes the AI in Education Framework as well as more specific guidance on the use of AI, for example within assessment. A list of FAQs on the framework for staff can be found here: AI Framework Staff FAQs. . Our guidance is based on the following principles: Responsible use, AI best practice, Integrity, Support and Equitable Access – collectively RAISE. Queen's University Belfast: AI in Education Framework AI in Edu Framework - PDF QUB Staff Guidance on the Use of Generative AI RAISE Guidance - Staff PDF QUB Student Guidance on the Use of Generative AI RAISE Guidance - Student PDF Explore QUB AI Guidance Please find QUB key guides on the use of AI in Assessment, 2026-2027, the use of AI in dissertations and current guidance on the use of AI detection tools. QUB Guidance on the use of AI in Assessment - 2026-2027 Learn more Guidelines for the use of Gen AI in Dissertation Projects Learn more QUB Guidance on the use of AI Detection Tools

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 94–108
SHA-256: da854b6aa3d09440cd3af1cf3c85f5cd523dc813460aac2ef8d5fd6fe819e4f3

QUB Guidance on the use of AI in Assessment – 2025-26 The goal of this document is to provide high-level guidance on the use of generative AI within assessment. Appropriately introducing AI With regard to the use of AI within education, our goals are to provide equal access for all, enhance the student learning experience, improve critical thinking skills, and prepare our students for real-world AI applications they will use after graduation. The inclusion of AI tools into teaching and assessment methods will vary by discipline, and protecting this autonomy is essential. Additionally, professional bodies may further shape and define how AI is integrated, particularly in relation to accreditation.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 1–13
SHA-256: 70c619e6e4a9f10a1ff205dfeac14ff6a69cb754edaf72bec26c5e51e86e1ddc

Impersonate another student, or to allow themselves to be impersonated during an assessment. 5.1.2 Plagiarism: The use or reproduction of another person's work without appropriate acknowledgment, thereby passing it off or presenting it as one's own. 5.1.3 Collusion: Where two or more students work together on an assignment that is meant to be completed individually. It is expected that the work being assessed, unless specifically designated as a group assessment, shall be the work solely of the student submitting it. 5.1.4 Duplication: Using or re-using significant or identical, or nearly identical portion(s) of their own work where such work has been previously submitted for credit within the University or at another institution. This may also be described as self-plagiarism, unless this has been explicitly permitted within the guidelines for the assessment. 5.1.5 Copying or Permitting Copying: Copying another student’s work or permitting another student to copy their work submitted for assessment. Both parties will be dealt with in accordance with these Regulations. 5.1.6 Contract cheating: Purchasing, attempting to purchase, or providing any other inducement, to procure assessed work created by another person which the student then submits as their own work. It is also an offence for a student to supply their own work to a third party, regardless of whether they receive a financial payment or obtain any other gain or advantage. 5.1.7 Improper use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Unauthorised or unacknowledged inclusion of content, including text and images, generated by artificial intelligence tools or other knowledge-based systems to create the response to an assessment submitted as a student’s own work, contrary to the University’s guidance on responsible use, integrity and AI best practice. 5.1.8 Fabrication: Where a student claims to have carried out experiments, interviews or any form of research which they have not in fact carried out, or where they invent or falsify data, evidence or experimental results. It is also an academic offence for a student to knowingly make use of falsified data as described above.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 168–175
SHA-256: fbf0bf27372447427611662b6c4a776c6ef98e3187f3faca9179c0525fbf25a5

Warunki i wyjątki

Specified branch eligibility; no numeric filing period established by this clause.

9.2. Appeals to Academic Offences Committee Against the Decision of the Academic Offences Officer 9.2.1 Grounds of Appeal 9.2.1.1 Where an Academic Offences Officer makes a decision under regulations 8.4.1 (iii) or 8.5.1(iii), the Responding Student may appeal to the Academic Offences Committee. Appeals may be made on one or both of the following grounds: Substantial and relevant new evidence has become available which the Responding Student could not reasonably have obtained in time to present for consideration by the Academic Offences Officer, which has had a material effect on the outcome, making it unsound. There was a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation and/or in the decision of the Academic Offences Officer which has had a clear and demonstrable impact on the outcome. 9.2.1.2 Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Academic Offences Officer does not itself constitute grounds of appeal. 9.2.1.3 There is no right of appeal against the decision of the Academic Offences Officer to refer the case to an Academic Offences Committee, or against a finding of poor academic practice.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 257–263
SHA-256: fbf0bf27372447427611662b6c4a776c6ef98e3187f3faca9179c0525fbf25a5

Warunki i wyjątki

Qualified continuation, not unconditional stay or placement permission.

11. Appeals to an Academic Offences Appeals Committee Against the Decision of the Academic Offences Committee 11.1 Grounds of Appeal 11.1.1. Responding Students who have a penalty imposed by an Academic Offences Committee may appeal to the Academic Offences Appeals Committee. Appeals may be made on one or both of the following grounds: Substantial and relevant new evidence has become available which the Responding Student could not have reasonably obtained in time to present for consideration by the Academic Offences Committee, which has had a material effect on the outcome, making it unsound. There is evidence of a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the investigation and/or the conduct of the Academic Offences Committee proceedings, which has had a clear and demonstrable impact on the decision. 11.1.2 Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Academic Offences Committee does not itself constitute grounds of appeal. 11.1.3 There is no right of appeal against a finding of poor academic practice. 11.2 Sifting and Review 11.2.1 The onus is on the Responding Student to present sufficient evidence and /or a sufficiently compelling case to warrant consideration of their appeal under these Regulations. 11.2.2 Where it is not clear that the evidence presented is sufficient or that the case is sufficiently compelling, the appeal against the decision of the Academic Offences Committee will be considered in accordance with Regulation 9.2.2. 11.3 Study Pending Appeal 11.3.1 With the exception of relevant interim measures, Responding Students who submit an appeal against a decision to suspend or withdraw them from the University, may normally continue to attend their programme of study pending the outcome of the appeal. 11.3.2 Where circumstances merit it, the Head of School may refuse permission for the Responding Student to attend classes and/or take or submit assessments pending the appeal. 11.3.3 Students who have submitted an appeal against a decision to suspend or withdraw them from the University may not participate in external or clinical placements pending the outcome of an appeal. 11.4 Decision of the Academic Offences Appeals Committee 11.4.1 The Academic Offences Appeals Committee will decide either: To uphold the appeal in full or in part, and either rescind the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Committee, or impose a different penalty, which shall not be more severe than the penalty given by the Academic Offences Committee (as permitted under regulation 10); or To dismiss the appeal and confirm the penalty imposed by the Academic Offences Committee. 11.4.2 The decision of the Academic Offences Appeals Committee shall be final and there is no further internal right of appeal.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 300–318
SHA-256: fbf0bf27372447427611662b6c4a776c6ef98e3187f3faca9179c0525fbf25a5

13. Decision Notification Decisions made under the University Regulations and Procedures relating to Academic Appeals, Conduct, Academic Offences, Student Complaints and Fitness to Practise will normally be communicated to the student within eight working days of the decision being made. Where it is not possible for the University to meet this deadline, for whatever reason, the student will be informed. 14. Late Appeals/Complaints Appeals or complaints received after the specified deadline will not be considered unless the student can evidence circumstances beyond their control (e.g. hospitalisation) which meant that they were unable to submit their appeal/complaint by the relevant deadline. 15. Relevant Regulations/Procedure 15.1 For Conduct, Student Complaints and Fitness to Practise: In the event that a case extends over more than one academic year, the applicable University regulations and/or procedures shall be those in place at the time when the case was first instigated. 15.2 For academic appeals and academic offences: In the event that an appeal extends over more than one academic year, the relevant University regulations and/or procedures shall be those in place at the time when the relevant assessment was taken by the student.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 170–176
SHA-256: 843dd7a167149404ebbef291808033492113e288f757df57692dc1deeedfe580

Warunki i wyjątki

Not recommended modality and dated scope preserved.

Use of AI detection tools Current tools that attempt to detect AI generated text – whether by analysing writing styles, using machine learning classification, or watermarking – cannot definitively identify AI-authored content. Such systems often produce an unacceptably high rate of false positives. Alongside this, AI capabilities are broadly integrated within many writing tools. Considering these factors, the use of text-based AI detectors is not recommended. See QUB guidance on the use of AI detection tools.

Zebrano: 2026-10-09 · 34–42
SHA-256: 70c619e6e4a9f10a1ff205dfeac14ff6a69cb754edaf72bec26c5e51e86e1ddc