King's College London

Inappropriate use without attribution is considered academic misconduct. For further details please see the Academic Misconduct Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedure. Potential penalties can range from formal warnings, resubmitting the coursework, suspension or expulsion.

證據定位器: Student guidance > What are the consequences of inappropriate use of generative AI?

King’s College London, unlike some other universities, does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list for much the same reason you would not be expected to cite a search engine, a student essay website or be over-dependent on synoptic, secondary source material.

證據定位器: How do I acknowledge use of generative AI?; lines 320-320 of captured page text

King's requires students to acknowledge any use of generative AI tools in coursework by including a declaration statement along with your references. Please note that so long as acknowledged use falls within the scope of appropriate use as defined in the assessment brief/guidance then this will not have any direct impact on the grades awarded. Unless alternative wording is suggested in an assessment brief then you should append one of the following:

證據定位器: How do I acknowledge use of generative AI?; lines 324-324 of captured page text

1. I declare that no part of this submission has been generated by AI software. These are my own words. Note. Using software for English grammar and spell checking is consistent with Statement 1.

證據定位器: Declaration statement 1; lines 326-328 of captured page text

2. I declare that parts of this submission has contributions from AI software and that it aligns with acceptable use as specified as part of the assignment brief/ guidance and is consistent with good academic practice. The content can still be considered as my own words. I understand that as long as my use falls within the scope of appropriate use as defined in the assessment brief/guidance then this declaration will not have any direct impact on the grades awarded.

證據定位器: Declaration statement 2; lines 332-332 of captured page text

However, the use of generative AI tools to produce output which is then copied as part of a submission is not appropriate. Prudent, ethical and constructive use of tools is increasingly likely to form part of the production of assessed work.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s4.2; physical PDF page 4; lines 172-174 of captured PDF text

This means that any work submitted must represent a genuine demonstration of the student’s own work, skills and subject knowledge, adheres to the guidelines of the assessment task, and respects the College’s value of academic integrity and honesty.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s4.2; physical PDF page 4; lines 176-179 of captured PDF text

The service should not assist with substantive content creation or structuring of the assessment. Above all, third parties cannot make substantive changes which compromise the authorship of the text

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s4.3; physical PDF page 4; lines 185-187 of captured PDF text

For the avoidance of doubt, generative Artificial Intelligence writing programmes are third party technologies and must only be used in accordance with College guidance.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s4.5; physical PDF page 4; lines 197-199 of captured PDF text

Submitting text generated by technology/artificial intelligence as their own, without written permission from their department is considered misconduct under the offences of third-party involvement or text manipulation, if it provides undue advantage or interferes with assessment of the student's own understanding.

證據定位器: Guidance on academic integrity, attribution, detection; lines 204-204 of captured page text

King’s took the decision not to enable the AI detection % in Turnitin due to concerns about its reliability and potential for false positives. As things stand AI detection is not an option that is available to us.

證據定位器: Detection; lines 210-210 of captured page text

Staff may use the electronic software “TurnitinUK” or other means to assist them in the process of detecting academic misconduct.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s6.4; physical PDF page 6; lines 282-283 of captured PDF text

Once the ASB Chair (or their nominee) has reviewed the information available, they may decide that the concern relates to poor academic practice and that no academic misconduct has occurred. Poor academic practice involves an unintentional misunderstanding of scholarly practice. Examples include when sources are acknowledged to some extent, but citation is inadequate or incomplete. It does not include when the failure to adhere to scholarly practice is blatant, extensive or results from a lack of effort. Poor academic practice is not a form of academic misconduct.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.4; physical PDF page 8; lines 365-372 of captured PDF text

The student will be invited to attend the Academic Integrity Meeting (AIM), which will normally be with any two of the following staff members: module leader, programme leader (or deputy), ASB Chair (or nominee), Programme Manager or personal tutor.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.7-7.8; physical PDF page 8; lines 392-395 of captured PDF text

The meeting is not a hearing, and the meeting should be informal, supportive and exploratory.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.8; physical PDF page 8; lines 397-398 of captured PDF text

Where the academic integrity concerns involve concerns of third-party involvement or doubts about the authorship of the submission, it is appropriate to ask the student to explain their answers, ideas, concepts or references.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.9; physical PDF page 8; lines 400-402 of captured PDF text

The student should not be under any pressure, or obliged to provide specific responses. If a student declines to engage with the AIM, they will have the opportunity to provide a written response.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.10; physical PDF page 8; lines 406-408 of captured PDF text

Staff should keep notes of the discussion and share these with the student, along with any other relevant materials discussed (e.g. items listed in 7.3). The student may provide any other relevant information after the meeting, and should normally do this within 5 working days.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.11; physical PDF page 9; lines 414-417 of captured PDF text

4. That the matter should be referred to Stage Two.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.13 outcome 4; physical PDF page 9; lines 443-443 of captured PDF text

In the case of Outcome 3 (see 7.13), where academic misconduct has been found and a penalty applied by the ASB Chair, the student may contest this outcome.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.17-7.18; physical PDF page 10; lines 474-475 of captured PDF text

The contestation should be sent to Student Conduct & Appeals in writing within 10 working days from the date of written notification of the Stage One outcome.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.18; physical PDF page 10; lines 477-478 of captured PDF text

1. There is new evidence that could not have been, or for good reason was not, made available at the time of the Committee, and the case warrants further consideration;

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.32; physical PDF page 13; lines 626-627 of captured PDF text

Students should submit a Misconduct Appeal Form to the Associate Director, Student Conduct & Appeals (or their nominee), on behalf of the Vice Chancellor & President, within 10 working days of the date of the Misconduct Committee outcome.

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.34; physical PDF page 13; lines 635-637 of captured PDF text

a formal warning, with those parts of the student's work that are unaffected by the concern to be marked;

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.26(i); physical PDF page 11; lines 558-559 of captured PDF text

expulsion (with or without credit retained).

證據定位器: Academic Misconduct Policy s7.26(v); physical PDF page 12; lines 592-592 of captured PDF text

King's College London supports considered use of generative AI, and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.

證據定位器: Context and definitions > Introduction

King’s contributed to and subscribes to the Russell Group’s five principles on the use of generative AI tools in education:

證據定位器: Values and principles statement; lines 160-160 of captured page text

Each of these has implications for King's staff and for their students. For this reason, governance has been framed with these statements in mind and these principles should be acknowledged as framing and as the launch point for AI literacy work support for staff and students to be able to be critically reflective in their interactions with generative AI, and to inform any programme or assessment modifications we seek to make.

證據定位器: Values and principles statement; lines 172-172 of captured page text

We have suggested four broad levels that your Programme and Module leaders may adjust to the specifics of an assessment:

證據定位器: What constitutes appropriate use?; lines 260-260 of captured page text

Includes routine and established use of tools such as auto transcription, spell checkers, grammar check.

證據定位器: 1. Minimal; lines 264-264 of captured page text

Use for clearly delineated tasks as appropriate/allowed/recommended.

證據定位器: 2. Limited/selective; lines 268-268 of captured page text

No specific restrictions but with requirement to track key stages/tools utilised.

證據定位器: 3. Open; lines 284-284 of captured page text

AI use is a feature of the assessment itself. Here the use of generative AI is a focal aspect of the assessment.

證據定位器: 4. Embedded; lines 296-296 of captured page text

Once again, we state that in no circumstance is it appropriate to use generated content verbatim without clear indication and acknowledgement, or to effectively outsource the writing task as much as it is inappropriate to get someone else to write something and claim it as your own.

證據定位器: What constitutes appropriate use?; lines 304-304 of captured page text

Importantly, it does make clear that we should never upload student work to any AI system without explicit consent and forethought.

證據定位器: Scope; lines 156-156 of captured page text

Reading and assessing student work should primarily be conducted by humans, except in specific circumstances. Human oversight is essential to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.

證據定位器: Principles; lines 202-204 of captured page text

The use of approved/supported university GenAI tools should be used for AI-assisted feedback and marking.

證據定位器: Principles; lines 208-208 of captured page text

Academic staff should not use GenAI tools to detect students' use of GenAI, as these tools are notoriously unreliable.

證據定位器: Principles; lines 212-212 of captured page text

Staff should not include any student details or upload work into any GenAI tools without explicit permission. This prevents personal data from being collected, stored, accessed, and shared without consent.

證據定位器: Our guidelines for AI-assisted marking and feedback; lines 220-220 of captured page text

Yes, students are permitted to make use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes. However, where a student's use of generative AI tools in their thesis writing exceeds the circumstances permitted by this guidance, they will risk breaching the Academic Misconduct Policy.

證據定位器: Are students allowed to use generative AI tools when writing their thesis?; lines 168-170 of captured page text

Doctoral students can use generative AI tools in an assistive role to clarify their own writing and help ensure that their own meaning is not misrepresented due to the quality and standard of the English used. This may go beyond simply correcting spelling and basic grammar, and can involve the rewriting, rephrasing and/or paraphrasing parts of the thesis.

證據定位器: Assistive use; lines 218-218 of captured page text

The use of AI tools as part of the research process – to analyse and draw insights from data, for example – is therefore largely beyond the scope of this guidance. At a minimum, such usage would, like any other element of research design, be clearly outlined by authors in a ‘Methods’ section, subject to ethical review where appropriate, and conducted in accordance with principles of research integrity as well as disciplinary norms.

證據定位器: Scope; lines 204-204 of captured page text

Must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool, or make use of external generative AI detection software when assessing the thesis.

證據定位器: Doctoral assessment > Principles for generative AI use by doctoral researchers at King's > Examiners

Before uploading any part of their research project into a generative AI tool, postgraduate research students must discuss potential confidentiality, copyright, data protection, and ethical considerations with their supervisory team, and receive approval to proceed.

證據定位器: Preliminary discussions between doctoral students and supervisors; lines 252-252 of captured page text

Following this discussion, the terms of any supervisory approval should be documented in writing, either as part of the agreed minutes of a supervisory meeting, or in an email between the supervisory team and the student.

證據定位器: Preliminary discussions between doctoral students and supervisors; lines 272-272 of captured page text

When postgraduate research students submit their thesis to the Research Degrees team, they are also required to submit a completed “Thesis Submission Declaration Form (RD2)” signed by the student and their supervisors. On this form, students will now be required to select from one of the following two declarations:

證據定位器: Thesis Submission Declaration Form (RD2); lines 282-282 of captured page text

I declare that no part of this thesis has been generated by AI software. These are my own words, and all references are cited accordingly.

證據定位器: RD2 declaration 1; lines 286-286 of captured page text

I acknowledge the use of AI software to rewrite, rephrase and/or paraphrase parts of this thesis to ensure the quality and standard of the English used. I declare that my use of AI software is consistent with the research degree award criteria outlined in the Framework for Postgraduate Research Awards. This thesis is a genuine account of the research I have undertaken, and the content can still be considered my own words, with all references cited accordingly.

證據定位器: RD2 declaration 2; lines 292-292 of captured page text

Please note that both of these declarations describe permitted approaches to thesis authorship for King’s research degrees.

證據定位器: RD2; lines 296-296 of captured page text

This is a swiftly moving landscape but all staff and students at King’s have access to text and image generation via Microsoft Copilot so long as they log into their KCL Microsoft account. Our Enterprise license means that use of Copilot comes with commercial data protection and is therefore a more secure alternative to other generative AI tools.

證據定位器: Equity of access; lines 214-214 of captured page text

You should not input personal data, sensitive information or content created by others into any AI platform.

證據定位器: What should I avoid?; lines 250-250 of captured page text

No, King's does not ban the use of any type of AI. It is increasingly part of the wider world and is changing the nature of many aspects of life including the jobs you are in or will progress into.

證據定位器: Is generative AI banned at King's?; lines 194-194 of captured page text

You should be given clear guidance on what level of generative AI is appropriate in any given assessment. Things are moving quickly so if you are uncertain, please do ask.

證據定位器: What constitutes appropriate use?; lines 260-260 of captured page text

Our Enterprise license means that use of Copilot comes with commercial data protection and is therefore a more secure alternative to other generative AI tools.

證據定位器: Equity of access; lines 214-214 of captured page text

You should not input personal data, sensitive information or content created by others into any AI platform.

證據定位器: What should I avoid?; lines 250-250 of captured page text

Please note that Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's students with your KCL Microsoft log in credentials.

證據定位器: Text generation; lines 180-180 of captured page text