London, United Kingdom

University of Greenwich

Student guide · Task scope and procedure

Identify the category and the correct review route.

Taught-programme rules require assessment permission and declaration if required. Category 1/investigative appeals and AOP appeals differ; the source’s calendar days exclude University closures.

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

Scope and transition details

Taught-programme rules require assessment permission and declaration if required. Category 1/investigative appeals and AOP appeals differ; the source’s calendar days exclude University closures.

Identify the category and the correct review route. hero illustration; exact scope and conditions are in the adjacent source-linked text.
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 sourceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

The taught-programme procedure treats AI-produced work, AI analysis/evaluation/calculations and copied or paraphrased GenAI text as misconduct unless the assessment specification permits it and it is appropriately declared if required. The file’s cover says v1.02, effective September 2025, approved February 2026; the URL still contains v1-1.

Scope: Taught programmes; postgraduate research has separate procedures · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Detection evidence · Support & adjustments

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

3. Definitions 3.1 Any improper activity or behaviour by a student which may give that student, or another student, an unfair academic advantage in assessment is considered to be assessment misconduct. Work submitted by a student for an assessment must always be their own. Assessment misconduct includes but is not limited to: • Attempting to complete any assessment by unfair means; • Using published work without appropriate referencing; • Copying the coursework or time-constrained assessment/examination of another; • Allowing coursework to be used or copied; • Re-using work previously submitted for another course or programme of study; • Submitting or using work generated by another entity as your own, e.g. computer file/program/design/drawings/results; • Submitting work produced in whole or part by Artificial Intelligence (AI) unless i) allowed by the assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if required). • Using AI to undertake analysis, evaluation or calculations, unless i) allowed by the assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if required). • Copying or paraphrasing content created by Generative AI to generate assessment text unless i) allowed by the assessment specification, and ii) appropriately declared (if required).;
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 132–152
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

Effective from September 2025 Document Owner: Assistant Director, Student & Academic Services (Registry) Principal Contact: Jack Beresford-Zahra, Academic Registry Manager, SAS Approving Body: Student Success Board Date of Approval: February 2026 Date Effective From: September 2025 New students Applies to: Continuing students (delete as appropriate) Partner provision Review Date: Every 3 years or earlier where required Version: v1.02
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 6–19
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

How you can respond

AI-specific sourceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

The July 2025 Assessment and Feedback Policy requires staff to provide students via the VLE with the GenAI referencing guide, effective-use video and Declaration of AI use. These resources support understanding; they do not grant every use in every assessment.

Scope: Staff supporting students in assessment · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Detection evidence · Support & adjustments

View original text and conditions

Scope: Staff supporting students in assessment · university

31. Staff will provide students with the university’s guide on referencing generative AI, video on using AI effectively and Declaration of AI use via the VLE to support students’ understanding of acceptable AI usage in assessments.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 306–308
SHA-256: 430f11075e69f4076ca45c5a99a26737297f0926b6e1167ab39d49832127beae

AI-specific sourceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

For suspected prohibited AI-generated work, the assessor alerts the module leader and may discuss the work with the student to compare demonstrated learning. A CP1 is completed if reason for suspicion remains. Suspicion and a CP1 referral are not a finding or automatic penalty.

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

Detection evidence · Support & adjustments

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

5.2 In the case of suspected use of artificial intelligence to generate work in ways that contravene this policy, the assessor will alert the module leader. They may have a conversation with the student to assess whether the learning demonstrated in the assignment is consistent with that demonstrated by the student in person. Where there is still reason to believe that the policy has been contravened, the assessor/module leader will complete a CP1. 5.3 For all other assessments, if the assessor thinks that a student has committed an assessment offence, they must make all reasonable efforts to preserve and retain evidence securely and will complete a CP1.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 214–222
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

Review & appeal

Source guidanceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

For a Category 1 or Investigative Interview sanction, an appeal statement goes to the stated email within seven calendar days of outcome notification. Grounds are material procedural error, unreasonable decision/disproportionate sanction or substantial previously unavailable information. Clause 9.3 says late statements will not be considered and the sanction will remain. Clause 1.5 generally expects students to meet procedural deadlines unless compelling independent evidence explains why they could not be met. Both provisions are retained; this is not an automatic extension or a guarantee that a late appeal will be accepted. The source’s closure-day exclusion applies, and AOP appeals follow a separate route.

Category 1/Investigative Interview appeal · 7 calendar days

Student · Required when using this procedure

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

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

Conditions & exceptions

Clause 1.5 provides a general deadline exception where compelling independent evidence shows why deadlines could not be met. Clause 9.3 separately says statements received after seven calendar days will not be considered and the sanction remains. Retain both without guaranteeing late acceptance or automatic extension; this route excludes AOP appeals.

9. Review and appeal procedures Review of Category 1 or Investigative Interview outcomes 9.1 Where a sanction is applied following a Category 1 meeting or Investigative Interview outcome the student may appeal the decision on one or more of the following grounds: a) the assessment misconduct process was not applied correctly or parts within it were applied incorrectly, and the resulting procedural error has had a significant negative impact on the decision made; b) that the decision reached was unreasonable and/or a disproportionate sanction has been imposed; c) substantial new material information/evidence is available which they were unable to provide before the outcome was reached. 9.2 The student should be informed of the outcome of their right to appeal. The student must send an appeal statement to the email address given within 7 calendar days of notification of the outcome, consideration will then be given to whether there are sufficient grounds for the case to proceed. 9.3 If the statement is received after 7 calendar days, the student will be informed that their appeal will not be considered, and that the sanction will remain, and the student will be issued with a Completion of Procedures statement including details of the OIA scheme.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 390–408
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

1.6 All timescales referred to in this document are measured in ‘calendar days’ which means every day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays, except for university closure days such as public holidays and Christmas closures. Full details of term dates and university closures can be found here https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/term-dates.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 82–85
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

1.5 Students are expected to keep to the deadlines within this procedure unless compelling independent evidence is provided to show why deadlines could not be met. The University is also expected to meet our deadlines but there will occasionally be times when we are unable to do so for good reason. If so, the student will be given the reasons and kept informed of progress.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 77–80
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

Source guidanceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

Assessment Offences Panel outcomes use a separate Academic Appeal route with procedural-error, substantial-new-evidence, unreasonable-decision or disproportionate-penalty grounds. This passage links to another procedure and does not give its filing period; the seven-day Category 1 clock is not transferred to AOP.

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

Appeal against an Assessment Offences Panel outcome 9.10 The outcome notification following an Assessment Offences Panel (AOP) will confirm that students may submit an Academic Appeal against the outcome on one or more of the following grounds: a) the Assessment Misconduct process was not applied correctly, and the resulting procedural error has had a significant negative impact on the decision made. b) substantial new evidence has come to light. c) the decision reached was unreasonable based on the available evidence. d) the penalty imposed was disproportionate. Full details of how to submit an Academic Appeal can be found here.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 444–455
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

Source guidanceFormal procedureModality: Informational

Site interpretation

After a Completion of Procedures letter, an eligible dissatisfied student may complain to OIA within twelve months of the letter’s date. Free independent advice and advocacy are available from Greenwich Students’ Union; eligibility and internal stages still matter.

external OIA complaint · 12 days

Student · Required when using this procedure

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

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

13. External adjudication 13.1 If you have been issued with a Completion of Procedures letter and you remain unhappy with the final decision of the University, you may be able to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. http://www.oiahe.org.uk/. Assessment Misconduct Procedure 9 13.2 You will need to send a Scheme Application Form to the OIA within twelve months of the date of the Completion of Procedures letter. A Scheme Application Form can be downloaded from the OIA website http://www.oiahe.org.uk/. 14. Advice and support Free independent advice and advocacy is available from the Greenwich Students’ Union. Further details can be found at https://www.greenwichsu.co.uk/advice
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 486–502
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

Support & adjustments · Detection evidence

Source guidanceFormal procedureModality: InformationalDetection evidence

Site interpretation

Greenwich may viva a random sample to check learning; allegations need a reasoned, evidenced decision on the balance of probabilities, with the burden on the University. Its “calendar days” exceptionally exclude University closure days including public holidays and Christmas closures. No detector threshold or automatic finding is given.

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

View original text and conditions

Scope: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university

1.3 The university reserves the right to viva a random sample of students to check that they can demonstrate a level of achievement relating to the assessment criteria consistent with the quality of work they have submitted for assessment. Where this or other factors give rise to allegations of assessment misconduct, they will be considered under this Procedure and may result in a penalty being imposed. 1.4 The standard of proof applied in operating this procedure is the balance of probabilities. This means the investigation needs only to conclude that it is likely that misconduct occurred, rather than requiring that the evidence be indisputable that misconduct has occurred. Decisions must be supported by a rationale and evidence. The burden lies on the university to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the acts constituting the alleged assessment misconduct occurred. 1.5 Students are expected to keep to the deadlines within this procedure unless compelling independent evidence is provided to show why deadlines could not be met. The University is also expected to meet our deadlines but there will occasionally be times when we are unable to do so for good reason. If so, the student will be given the reasons and kept informed of progress. 1.6 All timescales referred to in this document are measured in ‘calendar days’ which means every day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays, except for university closure days such as public holidays and Christmas closures. Full details of term dates and university closures can be found here https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/term-dates.
View official source ↗

Collected: 2026-10-08 · 65–85
SHA-256: 0e9bee8fc990d0b278995973a47e608e354a5df70154dc7be248c8702a45ce13

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.

Archived tool record; consult the official source for current access.

  • AI toolsTool mentioned; institutional access not establishedRestricted in the source scope
    Access, conditions & official evidence
    Source 1 ↗

    Original quotation

    University of Greenwich student AI guidance encourages students to use AI to aid learning, while telling students to acknowledge AI use in assignments by adding a declaration and not to copy and paste directly from an AI tool for submitted English-language work.
    Source 2 ↗

    Original quotation

    However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool as your written English is an assessed element of all work written in the English language, and submitted work must always be your own.
    Source 3 ↗

    Original quotation

    However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool ...

Reviewed record

Reviewed claims

5 reviewed claims

Academic Integrity1 reviewed claim

Academic Integrity

The University of Greenwich 2025 Assessment and Feedback Policy says staff will provide students with the university guide on referencing generative AI, a video on using AI effectively, and the Declaration of AI use via the VLE to support understanding of acceptable AI usage in assessments.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%

Normalized value: staff_provide_genai_reference_guide_video_and_ai_declaration_vle

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Staff will provide students with the university’s guide on referencing generative AI, video on using AI effectively and Declaration of AI use via the VLE to support students’ understanding of acceptable AI usage in assessments.

Localized display only

Staff will provide students with the university guide on referencing generative AI, a video on using AI effectively, and the Declaration of AI use via the VLE.

Teaching1 reviewed claim

Teaching

The University of Greenwich 2025 Assessment and Feedback Policy says assessment will be designed to maintain integrity and standards where students have access to generative AI, and encourages staff to incorporate generative AI as a learning tool while facilitating responsible student use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: assessment_design_integrity_standards_with_student_genai_access

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Learning technologies shall be used with consideration of potential biases and limitations of automation. Assessment will be designed to ensure that integrity and standards are maintained where students have access to generative AI, without sacrificing the importance of authenticity of assessment and pedagogic practice. Staff are encouraged to incorporate generative AI as a learning tool and equally facilitate responsible AI usage from students.

Localized display only

Assessment will be designed to ensure integrity and standards are maintained where students have access to generative AI, and staff are encouraged to incorporate generative AI as a learning tool while facilitating responsible student use.

Privacy1 reviewed claim

Privacy

For students who opt to use Studiosity, University of Greenwich says it processes personal data including name, email, course, student ID, and content of interactions with Studiosity tutors, and that Studiosity is an independent data controller based in Australia.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: studiosity_privacy_notice_data_fields_and_independent_controller

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The University of Greenwich processes the following personal data about you if you opt to use the Studiosity service: First name, last name, email address; Course; Student ID; Content of your interactions with Studiosity tutors ... Studiosity is an independent data controller based in Australia.

Localized display only

For opted-in Studiosity users, Greenwich lists personal data including name, email, course, student ID, and interaction content, and says Studiosity is an independent data controller based in Australia.

Ai Tool Treatment2 reviewed claims

Ai Tool Treatment

University of Greenwich student AI guidance encourages students to use AI to aid learning, while telling students to acknowledge AI use in assignments by adding a declaration and not to copy and paste directly from an AI tool for submitted English-language work.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: student_ai_learning_use_with_declaration_and_no_direct_copy_paste

Original evidence

Evidence 1
We encourage you to use AI in your studies ... However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool as your written English is an assessed element of all work written in the English language, and submitted work must always be your own. ... If you use AI in the process of undertaking your assignment, for example to create an outline of your assignment or to summarize articles, you should acknowledge this by adding a declaration at the end of your work.

Localized display only

We encourage you to use AI in your studies ... However, you must not copy and paste directly from an AI tool ... If you use AI in the process of undertaking your assignment ... you should acknowledge this by adding a declaration at the end of your work.

Ai Tool Treatment

University of Greenwich describes Studiosity+ as an online service for eligible Greenwich students that uses AI to generate academic-writing feedback, with AI trained by subject specialists and feedback monitored by specialists.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%

Normalized value: studiosity_plus_ai_writing_feedback_supported_service

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The University has teamed up with Studiosity+ to bring you an online service that can help improve your academic writing skills. Studiosity+ will allow you to upload almost complete drafts of your essays, reports and other written assessment types. Studiosity+ uses AI to generate feedback on your writing. The AI has been trained by subject specialists, and specialists monitor the feedback you receive.

Localized display only

Studiosity+ is described as an online academic-writing support service that uses AI to generate writing feedback, with AI trained by subject specialists and feedback monitored by specialists.

Source record

Official sources

3 sources

Open official source list
Record information, JSON & citation
ReviewAI-assisted reviewConfidence95%Snapshot statusNot publishedJSONPublic JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "University of Greenwich AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked May 20, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-greenwich

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.