Academic Judgement, Not Detection Software
The University does not employ AI detection tools, and academic misconduct investigations should never rely upon such software. Staff should not upload student work to AI detection platforms or other external systems, as this may breach data protection requirements and compromise student privacy.
Academic judgement – based on familiarity with students’ capabilities and understanding of how AI-generated content typically presents – provides a more reliable basis for identifying concerns that warrant further investigation.
Indicators That May Warrant Further Inquiry
Submitted work that raises concerns might exhibit a range of characteristics and the Senate Assessors for Student Conduct have created enhanced guidance which distinguishes between compelling evidence of GenAI misuse, as well as other indicators of potential GenAI misuse.
Content and argumentation
- generic or formulaic language lacking disciplinary specificity
- surface-level treatment of complex topics without sustained critical analysis
- confident presentation of plausible-sounding but inaccurate information
- generic conclusions that fail to address the specific question posed
- lack of specific examples or detailed engagement with sources
References and citations
- fabricated or non-existent references
- misattributed quotations or garbled author names
- inconsistencies in citation formatting
- references that exist but do not support the claims made
Style and presentation
- verbose or exaggeratedly formal language
- repetitive phrasing or circular argumentation
- unnaturally smooth transitions lacking substantive logical development
- unexpected Americanisms in otherwise British English writing (and vice versa)
- marked inconsistency with the student’s previous work.
Any misconduct investigation must be based on the all the available evidence and conducted in accordance with University procedures. Before referral under the Code of Student Conduct processes, staff may undertake an ‘exploratory interview’ with the student, request a statement in response to the allegations and/or request to see earlier drafts. Note that the presence of the above characteristics does not automatically mean the student has used or misused GenAI tools. [UofG Login required].