Aberdeen, United Kingdom

University of Aberdeen

Student guide · Course guidance and attribution

Keep your own thinking and follow assessment permission.

The 2026/27 academic discipline Code preserves permission conditions, evidence review and separate School/University hearing powers. Students can seek AUSA representation and submit mitigation. The student AI guide requires author permission for course material and no personal/sensitive data input; issued AI-tool accounts remain unverified.

A complete student policy summary is not available yet; see the collected claims and sources.

Scope and transition details

The 2026/27 academic discipline Code preserves permission conditions, evidence review and separate School/University hearing powers. Students can seek AUSA representation and submit mitigation. The student AI guide requires author permission for course material and no personal/sensitive data input; issued AI-tool accounts remain unverified.

DO YOUR OWN THINKING / ABERDEEN comic: student in a blue hoodie studies independently at an Aberdeen desk.
Check the rule for your school and assignment.

What happens if AI use raises a concern?

Supplement collected: 2026-10-08 · Current applicability not independently confirmed

Compare published university record ↗

When a concern arises

AI-specific sourceOfficial guidance

Site interpretation

Aberdeen’s student GenAI guidance says not to outsource critical thinking, analysis, evaluation or synthesis. Generating assessed content without authorisation or acknowledgement is investigated as plagiarism under the academic discipline code.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

Important: You must not use GenAI to do your critical thinking, analysis, evaluation, or synthesis. Neither should you use it to generate essays, poems, or any creative works. The purpose of these assignments is to demonstrate your unique ideas and creativity. Remember, using GenAI tools to generate content for work submitted for assessment, without authorisation or acknowledgement, will be regarded as academic misconduct and investigated as a plagiarism offence under the Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic). You can find out more by watching our introductory video.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 17–23
SHA-256: 795bbe9842102c811182c1105fd9d269e82162f6819e4e52d0bd7f8b9d394209

AI-specific sourceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

The 2026/27 Code defines misuse of AI as unauthorised or unacknowledged generated assessment content, unless explicit permission/guidance is given as part of the assessment method. Unedited or unacknowledged generation, or failure to follow guidelines fully, may constitute misconduct; preserve the stated permission exception and may wording.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

Misuse of Artificial Intelligence Misuse of Artificial Intelligence is defined as the unauthorised or unacknowledged use of artificial intelligence tools to generate content for work submitted for assessment, unless explicit permission / guidance has been given to use them as part of the assessment method. Using GenAI tools such as ChatGPT to generate material for work submitted for assessment, without any form of editing or acknowledgement, or by not following the assessment guidelines fully, may constitute academic misconduct.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 348–354
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

AI-specific sourceOfficial guidance

Site interpretation

Aberdeen student guidance requires explicit author permission before putting learning materials or assessment information into GenAI. Never enter personal or sensitive data, and review the tool’s privacy policy and terms. Examples of named tools in the guidance do not establish University-issued student accounts.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

1.2 Privacy and data considerations There are risks to data privacy and intellectual property when entering prompts or data into GenAI tools. Always ensure that you have the appropriate permissions in place before entering any data into these tools. Please note that any learning materials (e.g. lectures) and assessment information (e.g. questions, tasks, activities) must not be entered into these tools without the explicit permission of the author (e.g. Course Coordinator, Lecturer). What you can do: Never enter personal and sensitive data into GenAI tools. Review their privacy policy and terms of use, or equivalent statements, to inform your use. Further support on information security is available.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 53–61
SHA-256: 795bbe9842102c811182c1105fd9d269e82162f6819e4e52d0bd7f8b9d394209

AI-specific sourceOfficial guidance

Site interpretation

Aberdeen’s July 2026 quick guide requires permitted assessment AI use to acknowledge the tools, when used and how generated content was used. It recommends tool names, purposes, prompts and generation dates; if permitted but unused, students should state that no GenAI content was used. Citation-style guidance remains provisional.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

If you are permitted to use GenAI tools for your assessment, you must ensure you acknowledge which tools you have used, when you used them, and how you used the content that they generated. Acknowledging the Use of GenAI Tools It is recommended that you provide the name(s) of the GenAI tool(s) used, a statement summarising how they were used, the prompts used, the date on which the content was generated and a description of how the generated content was used. This can be represented as follows: I acknowledge the use of [Insert name of GenAI tool(s)] from [company, url of GenAI tool(s)] to [Insert a statement summarising their use]. I entered the following prompts on [Insert date]: [Insert prompts] and [Insert description of how the generated content was used] For example: I acknowledge the use of Copilot (Microsoft, https://copilot.microsoft.com/) to generate content for background research on this assignment. I entered the following prompts on 10 September 2025: • Provide information on the ethical considerations when using generative artificial intelligence tools • Describe the challenges and opportunities that GenAI tools offer to Higher Education and Careers The content generated from these prompts was used to create an outline structure, which I then refined by drawing on academic sources I identified through searching electronic databases and Primo. If you have been permitted to use GenAI tools, but do not make use of them, you should acknowledge this: No content generated by a GenAI tool(s) has been used in this assignment. Citing and Referencing GenAI Content, in Addition to Acknowledging their Use You may need to cite and reference material generated by a GenAI tool. Since content generated by a GenAI tool is a nonrecoverable source, it is recommended that you use the reference style for personal communication, unless specific guidelines are available. For example, for the Harvard Style: In-text citation: Format: creator (year) Microsoft Copilot (2025) stated that “A generative artificial intelligence tool is a tool that uses AI to create new and realistic content, such as text, images, music, audio, and video, based on existing data or inputs” Reference: Format: creator (year of communication) title/name of GenAI response to ‘name of person who conducted the search’, day month accessed Microsoft (2025) Copilot response to Joe Bloggs, 12 September PAGE 2 University of Aberdeen: Centre for Academic Development Reviewed: 22/07/2026 Quick Guide Number: QG34 Q u i c k G u ide t o A c kn o w le d g in g an d C i ti n g t he Us e of G e n AI Please note that this guidance is provisional and subject to change as the Library develops detailed
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 8–46
SHA-256: d12be4d378ae9138a992ea781e251d193fa38e17a4703f1dcbb43c504b3f7541

How you can respond

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

For a School-level investigation, a meeting should be arranged no later than ten working days after the allegation is raised, with at least five working days’ notice unless otherwise agreed in writing. Students receive the allegation and all supporting evidence, may bring another person, and may be questioned about understanding the submitted work.

School-level meeting arrangement · 10 working days

Institution · Should submit

Within the stated period. Check the source summary and original text for the starting point, scope and exceptions.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

4.1.2 The procedure to be followed by the Head of School when conducting a School-level Investigation is as follows, with further provisions applying to both School-level Investigation meetings and Discipline Hearings outlined in Appendix B: (a) a meeting, held on campus or online (e.g. via Microsoft Teams) , should be arranged with the student no later than 10 working days after the allegation is raised, giving the student at least 5 working days’ notice of the meeting, unless otherwise agreed in writing; (b) the student should be contacted, in writing, outlining the reasons for the meeting, clearly stating PAGE 3 3 Approved by the University Court (June 2026) the allegation, and confirming that they may be accompanied by another person if they wish. At the same time the student must be provided with copies of all evidence supporting the allegation of Academic Misconduct (see Section 5) . Such meetings will be held in the appropriate way, whether on-campus or online; (c) where relevant, the student may be questioned to determine their level of understanding of the work submitted . In some cases, an appropriate subject specialist will be invited to attend the meeting to facilitate this. The student should be informed if any additional members of staff will be invited to attend the meeting. (d) another member of staff shall be present at the meeting for the purpose of taking a record of the discussion, and additional staff members may be present if the Head of School requests; and (e) the student should be sent a copy of the meeting’s outcome (using the appropriate pro forma) and record of the discussion to confirm its accuracy, no later than 5 working days after the meeting is held.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 94–117
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

Possible outcomes

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

After a School-level finding, options include guidance, assessing only independent work, deduction up to three CGS points, uncapped or D3-capped resubmission, or G3 for extensive misconduct. The selected outcome considers mitigation and significance; this is not an automatic AI penalty.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

outcomes available to dispose of the case. The outcome chosen can be based on consideration of mitigating circumstances raised by the student during the School-level Investigation or the general significance of the elements of the assessment in question: (a) To signpost the student to available guidance, additional training or support to avoid academic misconduct in the future (which may include referral to the Student Learning Service for advice and support), with or without any additional penalty; (b) To ask that work be assessed ignoring the sections where academic misconduct was found, and a mark (or outcome) be provided in the usual way, reflecting the amount of independent work of the student; (c) To deduct up to a maximum of 3 CGS points1; (d) To allow the student to resubmit the work in question for assessment, taking into account advice given during the meeting on avoiding academic misconduct and any other support deemed appropriate for the specific case (which may include referral to the Student Learning Service for advice and support and/or signposting to additional training), as a first attempt and therefore without capping the grade (or outcome); (e) To allow the student to resubmit the work in question for assessment, taking into account advice given during the meeting on avoiding plagiarism/collusion and any other support deemed appropriate for the specific case (which may include referral to the Stu dent Learning Service for advice and support) with the ultimate grade for the assessment in question being capped at a D32; (f) To award a CGS of G3 for the component of assessment (for example, a written examination or piece of in -course assessment) in which extensive academic misconduct occurred. If the imposition of this penalty means that the student fails the course and a resit is permitted, the CGS mark attainable following reassessment will be restricted to a maximum of CGS D33.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 160–184
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

At a Discipline Hearing, the Investigating Officer may reject an allegation or dismiss it for procedural irregularity. If upheld, further possible outcomes include course CGS G3 and expulsion ratified by the Principal or nominee. Expulsion is a possible upheld-case outcome, not a result implied merely by tool use.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

6.2 Possible outcomes where an allegation of academic misconduct is upheld at Discipline Hearing 6.2.1 Following a Discipline Hearing, t he Investigating Officer , having completed the investigation and considered all of the evidence submitted, may: (a) Decide that academic misconduct has not occurred and the allegation is not upheld, or (b) Decide that academic misconduct has occurred and the allegation is upheld, or (c) Decide that the case should be dismissed due to procedural irregularity. 6.2.2 Where an allegation of academic misconduct is upheld at Discipline Hearing, the possible outcomes are those listed in Section 4.2.4, in addition to: (a) The student shall be awarded an overall CGS G3 for the course(s) in which academic misconduct occurred. If a resit is permitted, the CGS mark attainable following reassessment will be restricted to a maximum of CGS D34. (b) The student shall be expelled from the University. In this case, the outcome shall be ratified by the Principal (or their nominee).
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 280–292
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

Review & appeal

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

Aberdeen’s academic discipline standard is the balance of probabilities: after reviewing available evidence, the decision-maker considers whether the event more likely than not occurred. University-level Investigating Officers come from a different School; an allegation can be upheld, not upheld or dismissed.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

2.2 For cases that are being dealt with at University level, a n Investigating Officer will be selected from a list of academics approved by Senate. The Investigating Officer will be from a different School from which the allegation has been raised. 2.3 The standard of proof that shall be used in all cases under this Code is the balance of probabilities. This means that a Head of School, Investigating Officer or anyone else permitted to make a decision under this Code will be satisfied that an event occurred if they decide, having reviewed the evidence available, that the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. 2.4 The possible decisions an Investigation Officer can take when deciding if a case of alleged Academic Misconduct has taken place are that the allegation is: upheld; not upheld; or case dismissed.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 31–41
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

The appeal policy gives valid-ground appeals against discipline decisions a direct equivalent of Part C, bypassing the standard first and initial stages. Late submission is accepted only exceptionally with good reasons. Its legacy role names differ from the 2026/27 Code’s Investigating Officer; check Registry and the outcome notice for the applicable form and clock.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

11.4 APPEALS AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS UNDER THE CODE OF PRACTICE ON STUDENT DISCIPLINE (ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC) Under the Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) and Code of Practice on Student Discipline (non-Academic) (see glossary of terms) a student can appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Officer, a Senior Disciplinary Officer or a Disciplinary Committee, but only if there are valid grounds to do so (section 1 refers). A student in this position will be considered to have exhausted the first steps and initial stage of a standard appeal and, as such, will be invited to complete a form equivalent to that of a Part C. The submission of the appropriate form (and supporting documentation) will be logged, given a reference number and will be allocated to a Case Officer. An email will be sent to the student confirming these details. Late submission will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances where good reason can be given for the delay. Where the discipline case File Record has not been provided by the student, this will be sought from the appropriate internal department by the case officer. The process for this type of appeal will then follow the procedures as laid out above (section 11.3 refers).
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 437–454
SHA-256: 712b58bd1b8f165f3cd0cedbbd311e0df3e8d42f824d363129ef66a91317f0d8

Support & adjustments

Source guidanceFormal procedure

Site interpretation

Discipline Hearings require at least five working days’ notice in teaching time or ten outside teaching time unless prior agreement is reached. Students may bring or be represented by a chosen person, with details in advance and co-alleged individuals excluded. AUSA can advise and represent; late mitigation needs an accepted explanation.

Discipline Hearing notice during teaching · 5 working days

Institution · Required when using this procedure

At least this many days before the hearing. Check the source summary and original text for the starting point, scope and exceptions.

Scope: students · Code of Practice on Student Discipline (Academic) 2026/27, approved June 2026; currently registered UG/PGT/PGR, UG/PGT graduates and visiting PGR, excluding PGR graduates. More stringent professional-body regulations take precedence.

View original text and conditions

Scope: students · university

1 Procedure when arranging a meeting/Discipline Hearing under this Code 1.1 The student who is the subject of action under this Code shall be informed in writing of any allegations made against them and the date, time and location of the proposed meeting/Discipline Hearing. Such meetings will be held in the appropriate way, whether on-campus or online. For School-level meetings, notice of at least five working days shall normally be given of any meeting that requires the student’s attendance. For Discipline Hearings, notice of at least five working days during teaching time (ten working days outside teaching time) shall be given, unless the prior agreement with the student has been reached. 1.2 The student shall be provided a copy of this Code and any other relevant Codes of Practice as part of the initial communication regarding the meeting/Discipline Hearing. The student shall also be provided with copies of all written submissions which are to be considered at the hearing. 1.3 The student shall be invited to respond in writing to allegations but shall not be required to do so. 1.4 The student shall be required to confirm that they will attend the hearing on the specified date/time and provide details of any witnesses they wish to be present at the meeting/Discipline Hearing. 2 Representation 2.1 The student may be accompanied or represented at any meeting/Discipline Hearing by one person of their choice, provided that details of the accompanying person are submitted in advance . The Head of School/Investigating Officer has the discretion to permit additional persons to accompany the student at any meeting/ Discipline Hearing, though the student must request this , and provide details of anyone accompanying them, in advance. 2.2 Where a student is alleged to have committed an offence under this Code with another individual, that individual may not accompany the student at any meeting/Discipline Hearing connected with the offence. That other individual may, however, be called as a witness at the meeting by either the Head of School/Investigating Officer or the student to which the meeting/Discipline Hearing relates. 2.3 The University will not provide legal or other representation for students subject to proceedings under this Code. Students can seek independent advice on the application of this Code, and obtain representation at a meeting/Discipline Hearing, from Aberdeen University Students’ Association. 3 Extenuating or Mitigating Circumstances 3.1 If a student believes that a medical condition or other personal circumstances have affected their performance in an assessment, they must notify the relevant School(s) at the first possible opportunity. The University’s Policy and Procedures on Student Absence provides further information on the procedure which must be followed. 3.2 Where a student has not given notice of extenuating or mitigating circumstances within the required timescale, they cannot be accepted as evidence under this Code unless permitted by the Head of School after a satisfactory explanation for the delay in providing the information is given.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 395–429
SHA-256: b17b44e1c253c3eab7e651a5977e9332a054d5c786905d4aafb98b5ee9b52097

Collection & version notes

Published source-based additions. English summaries and original-language quotations are shown separately from the reviewed record. These are possible processes and outcomes, not automatic penalties for AI use. Present applicability has not been independently confirmed; check the source scope and version.

Source-text comparison; not an official translation

Hashes allow comparison of saved content; they do not certify current validity or immutability. These topics are not a mandatory sequence.

AI tools & access

Tool access is not permission to use AI in an assessment. Check your assignment rules, eligible users and data restrictions.

No source-backed tool record has been established for this university yet. This does not mean AI tools are unavailable or prohibited.

Reviewed record

Reviewed claims

7 reviewed claims

Academic Integrity2 reviewed claims

Academic Integrity

When GenAI use is permitted for assessment, University guidance says students must acknowledge which tools they used, when they used them, and how they used generated content.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: students_must_acknowledge_permitted_genai_use

Original evidence

Evidence 1
If you are permitted to use GenAI tools for your assessment, you must ensure you acknowledge which tools you have used, when you used them, and how you used the content that they generated.

Academic Integrity

The University treats unattributed or unedited GenAI tool use in work submitted for assessment as a form of academic integrity concern.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: unattributed_unedited_genai_assessment_use_academic_integrity

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Generative Artificial Intelligence Unattributed or unedited use of GenAi tool in work submitted for assessment.
Teaching1 reviewed claim

Teaching

Course Coordinators must provide students clear guidance on what GenAI tool use is permitted for work submitted for assessment.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: course_coordinators_must_state_genai_assessment_permissions

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Course Coordinators must provide clear guidance to students on what is permitted in relation to the use of GenAI tools for the preparation of work that will be submitted for assessment.
Privacy2 reviewed claims

Privacy

Student guidance says learning materials and assessment information must not be entered into GenAI tools without explicit permission from the author, and students should never enter personal and sensitive data into GenAI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: students_must_not_enter_learning_assessment_personal_sensitive_data_without_permission

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Please note that any learning materials (e.g. lectures) and assessment information (e.g. questions, tasks, activities) must not be entered into these tools without the explicit permission of the author (e.g. Course Coordinator, Lecturer). What you can do: Never enter personal and sensitive data into GenAI tools.

Privacy

Staff guidance says staff should not enter University data, including student work, research data, or lecture materials, into GenAI tools without appropriate permissions.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: staff_should_not_enter_university_data_into_genai_without_permissions

Original evidence

Evidence 1
You should not be entering any University data, such as student work, research data, lecture materials, without appropriate permissions.
Ai Tool Treatment2 reviewed claims

Ai Tool Treatment

Student guidance says students must not use GenAI to do their critical thinking, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, or to generate essays, poems, or creative works.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%

Normalized value: students_must_not_outsource_critical_or_creative_assessment_work_to_genai

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Important: You must not use GenAI to do your critical thinking, analysis, evaluation, or synthesis. Neither should you use it to generate essays, poems, or any creative works.

Ai Tool Treatment

The University of Aberdeen states that it is committed to inclusive, ethical and trustworthy use of AI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: inclusive_ethical_trustworthy_ai_commitment

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The University is committed to inclusive, ethical and trustworthy use of AI.

Source record

Official sources

6 sources

Open official source list
Record information, JSON & citation
ReviewAI-assisted reviewConfidence97%Snapshot statusNot publishedJSONPublic JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "University of Aberdeen AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked May 16, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-aberdeen

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

Open change log

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.