Policy presence
University of Gothenburg has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Gothenburg, Sweden
University of Gothenburg
University of Gothenburg is listed as QS 2026 rank 202. University of Gothenburg has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
University of Gothenburg is listed as QS 2026 rank 202. University of Gothenburg has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Gothenburg as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 15, 2026 and last changed on May 15, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 reviewed claims, from 5 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-gothenburg.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
- Privacy, sensitive-data, or security language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
No source-backed public claim about AI disclosure or acknowledgement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about disclosing, acknowledging, citing, or declaring AI use.
Coursework
University of Gothenburg has 2 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Exams
University of Gothenburg has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Gothenburg has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Gothenburg has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Gothenburg has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Gothenburg has 4 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Gothenburg has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Gothenburg has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
No source-backed public claim about AI security review or procurement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about security review, procurement, vendor approval, risk assessment, authentication, SSO, or enterprise licensing.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
8 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
The University of Gothenburg study-rules PDF states that, for take-home examinations, written tasks, or equivalent, AI-generated content may not be presented as one’s own work and examiners should specify the limits for permitted use of generative AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI-generated content may not be presented as own work; examiner should specify permitted-use limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1With regard to the use of generative AI tools, AI-generated content may not be presented as one’s own work, as this is considered misleading. In the task instructions, the examiner should specify the limits for the permitted use of generative AI tools.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Gothenburg student guidance says the university does not prohibit generative AI in education; teachers and examiners decide whether, when, and how it may be used in coursework and examinations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no university-wide prohibition; course/examiner-level decisions
Original evidence
Evidence 1Göteborgs universitet förbjuder inte användning av generativ AI i utbildning. Istället är det upp till lärare och examinatorer att själva avgöra om, när och hur generativ AI kan användas i kursarbete och examinationer.
Teaching
University of Gothenburg student guidance says generative-AI guidelines vary between courses, programmes, departments, and faculties, and that teachers and examiners are responsible for communicating those guidelines to students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: guidelines vary by course/programme/department/faculty; teachers/examiners communicate them
Original evidence
Evidence 1Riktlinjer för generativ AI varierar mellan kurser, program, avdelningar och fakulteter. Det är lärare och examinatorer som ansvarar för att kommunicera riktlinjer kring generativ AI till studenter.
Academic Integrity
University of Gothenburg student guidance on cheating says generative AI use counts as cheating when it is used to complete an examination task the student is expected to do independently, to present AI-generated material as the student’s own work, or in other ways prohibited in the course or programme.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unauthorized generative AI use can count as cheating
Original evidence
Evidence 1Generativ AI kan skapa nytt innehåll. Universitetet förbjuder inte användning av generativ AI, men det räknas som fusk om du använder det för att: Genomföra en examinationsuppgift som du som student förväntas göra själv; Presenterar AI-genererad text eller annat material som om det vore ditt eget arbete; Även andra sätt att använda generativ AI kan vara otillåtna i din kurs eller i ditt program.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Gothenburg PIL guidance says all staff and students have access to Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, employees have access to ChatGPT Edu, and Microsoft 365 Copilot can be requested with manager approval because its cost is charged to the department or equivalent.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat for all staff/students; ChatGPT Edu for employees; extended Copilot by approved paid request
Original evidence
Evidence 1At present, all staff and students have access to the chat service Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat. In addition, employees have access to ChatGPT Edu. It is also possible to request access to the extended version of Copilot, Microsoft 365 Copilot; however, this service comes with a cost that is charged to the department or equivalent, and therefore an order requires approval from a manager.
Academic Integrity
University of Gothenburg student guidance says the university does not recommend checking student work with an AI-detection tool because existing tools are unreliable.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI-detection tools not recommended because existing tools are unreliable
Original evidence
Evidence 1Det är viktigt att notera att universitetet inte rekommenderar att kontrollera ditt arbete med en AI-detektionsverktyg eftersom befintliga verktyg är opålitliga.
Ai Tool Treatment
A University of Gothenburg PIL page says that, for examinations, the university regards generative AI as a tool and applies the university’s rules for first- and second-cycle studies.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: generative AI treated as a tool in examinations; first- and second-cycle study rules apply
Original evidence
Evidence 1När det gäller examinationer ser Göteborgs universitet generativ AI som ett verktyg och universitetets regler för studier på grundnivå och avancerad nivå tillämpas.
Privacy
University of Gothenburg PIL guidance advises caution with services not offered through the university because they have not been reviewed for legal or security issues, and says users should not share personal data or sensitive information; the page says this also applied to Microsoft Bing Chat/Copilot at the time of publication.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: do not share personal data or sensitive information with unreviewed services; caution also stated for Microsoft Bing Chat/Copilot
Original evidence
Evidence 1There is also some complexity regarding the use of services not offered through the university since they have not been scrutinized from, for example, legal perspectives, or in terms of security. Therefore, users of these services are advised to exercise caution. It is, for instance, very important not to share any personal data or sensitive information. This also applies to Microsoft Bing Chat/Copilot at present, even though it is offered through the university.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
5 source attribution
AI-generated material in higher education
pil.gu.se
Fusk vid examination
studentportal.gu.se
Inverkan på examination och bedömning
pil.gu.se
Rules for Studies at First- and Second-Cycle Level: Reg. no. GU 2025/16
studentportal.gu.se
Vägledning vid användning av generativ AI i studierna
studentportal.gu.se
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.