Week 3: AI Policy
AI literacy essentials for academic libraries
Choice and Clarivate have teamed up to develop an eight-week newsletter-based course on generative AI literacy for academic library workers. If you are AI curious—and short on time—then this course is for you!
Each week contains three sections:
- Introduction: An overview of a core AI literacy competency
- In Practice: An interview or case study
- Reading Room: Further reading material focused on the topic
- The module closes with a quiz and discussion questions.
Make sure you’re registered to receive all eight weeks directly in your inbox! Know someone who might be interested in this micro-course? Share the registration page with your colleagues.
In week three, we look at how to create policy around AI for your institution.
Table of Contents
Introduction
From Curiosity to Clarity: Building Generative AI Policy in Academic Libraries
by Rosalyn Metz, Chief Technology Officer for Emory Libraries and Museum
When generative AI burst onto the scene, many academic libraries were caught flat-footed. Some faculty had already begun experimenting with it, students were submitting AI-generated essays, and vendors were integrating generative tools into their platforms. In the middle of this rapid transformation, libraries found themselves needing to shift from curious observers to active policy creators. We are no longer just stewards of information; we are interpreters of technology, advocates for ethical practices, and enablers of institutional clarity.
Libraries as Ethical Intermediaries
Creating policy around generative AI is not about compliance or technological expertise, although these are essential skills. It’s about aligning with our core values: privacy, equity, intellectual freedom, and the long-standing mission of libraries as spaces for the exchange of ethical knowledge. AI tools present complex questions about labor, ownership, and consent. As a result, the policies we craft must address not only what AI can do, but what it should do, and for whom.
Core Considerations for AI Policy
Governance and Institutional Alignment
Start by building partnerships with central IT, research offices, and faculty governance bodies. Policies regarding generative AI should not be siloed within a single unit, but rather connect to broader concerns about research integrity and academic freedom.
Equally important is ensuring that the institution’s technological infrastructure supports the ethical use of resources. For example, if a vendor provides licensed data with restrictions on AI training, do current environments allow faculty to experiment with AI tools without violating licensing terms?
Transparency & Explainability
Clarity and transparency are some of the most immediate needs. Faculty and students need to know what tools do, what data they use, and what implications their use has on teaching and research. Encourage the providers of campus tools to develop transparency statements that indicate what datasets a vendor used during a tool’s training and whether user input contributes to further AI training. This level of transparency enables users to make informed decisions about the tools they use, promoting institutional accountability.
Ownership & Consent
A core concern is the use of intellectual labor without consent. Many faculty members assume that their articles, especially older ones, are protected. But publishers have quietly licensed content to AI companies. Libraries need to help faculty understand their rights, what they may have signed away, and how to assert control moving forward.
The same goes for repositories and metadata. Policies should clarify whether AI vendors can harvest objects and their associated metadata for training purposes and what protections are in place to ensure the integrity of these datasets. Without meaningful technological interventions, there is no reliable way to stop AI vendors from scraping and training on our content.
This reality makes it all the more crucial for libraries to establish ethical boundaries and educate stakeholders about the associated risks. Consent doesn’t stop at copyright; it encompasses intention, context, and the responsible stewardship of knowledge.
Enacting AI Policy in Library Settings
Start Where You Are
You don’t have to wait for a university-wide mandate. Begin with an audit: Where is AI already being used? Are there tools embedded in discovery layers, citation managers, or instructional technology? Is anyone tracking that use?
Begin to identify gaps. Where are policies missing? How are ad hoc decisions made? Where can the library take the lead in clarifying the path forward?
Libraries already control key levers:
- Repositories: While you may not be able to prevent scraping outright, you can publish terms of use that state your ethical stance. You can also partner with technologists to mitigate bot scraping of content.
- Special collections: Since most scraping happens without consent or coordination, libraries must be proactive in embedding context directly into metadata. Ensure that contextual metadata is integrated within the applications themselves to discourage misuse or misrepresentation.
- Publishing Contracts: Help faculty negotiate terms with publishers that prevent their work from being licensed to AI vendors without consent. Contracts may include language that retains specific rights or adds clauses prohibiting secondary licensing for training purposes, ensuring that institutional research outputs are subject to oversight and control.
Working with technology companies
Vendors are increasingly vague about how their platforms use AI. Some embed generative tools without clearly stating their training data or usage models. Librarians can insist on transparency before adoption and request opt-out clauses for data usage.
You don’t have to go it alone. Consider forming or joining consortia that share contract language, licensing positions, and case studies to leverage collective expertise. Partner with technologists to gain a deeper understanding of how technology may impact contracts for licensed content.
Practical steps you can take
- Create a shared values statement: Define your institution’s ethical position on generative AI, rooted in your library’s mission.
- Draft sample policy language: For example, “Generative AI tools should not be adopted without undergoing a formal technology or security review by central IT.”
- Educate and engage: Run workshops, host reading groups, and build internal education programs aimed at library staff, especially those without a technology background. The AI landscape is rapidly evolving; help staff engage with it meaningfully and confidently.
- Foster a culture of inquiry: Policies should adapt as our understanding of AI evolves and its implications for higher education become clearer.
What Future Are We Designing?
Ultimately, AI policy isn’t about controlling the future. It’s about intentionally, ethically, and collaboratively shaping it. Just because we can use AI doesn’t mean we should, at least not without thoughtful guardrails. Let’s take this opportunity not to respond to change, but to design the future of scholarship, one policy at a time.
In Practice
Establishing an AI Lab
Karim Boughida, Dean of Libraries, Stony Brook University, saw the need to make AI accessible across all disciplines.
Click here to read more about how the library became the center for AI experimentation on campus.
In 2018, the University of Rhode Island became the first institution to create an AI Lab situated within its library. The project was conceived of, championed, and led by Karim Boughida, who was Dean of University Libraries at URI at the time. Today, Boughida is Dean of Libraries at Stony Brook University, where he has plans to establish a similar AI Lab. An early advocate for building AI literacy among students, faculty, and staff, Dean Boughida has also been involved in the creation of Stony Brook’s AI Innovation Institute and regularly works to foster AI literacy and competencies on campus. In this interview, he details the process of building an AI Lab at URI, including the challenges involved, and his plans to build another AI Lab at Stony Brook, providing a helpful framework for others looking to do the same.
I read about how you established the University of Rhode Island’s AI Lab, which was significant for being the first AI Lab to be housed within an academic library. Why was it important to center the AI Lab at the library?
I had this idea in 2015 when I joined URI, recognizing early how AI would impact all areas of society. We opened the AI Lab in 2018, placing it in the library because it’s an interdisciplinary space open to everyone—students, faculty, and staff. That helped ensure AI wasn’t siloed in one field but accessible across campus.
Libraries are evolving. They’re now about AI and data “literacies” and beyond, not just books and cultural objects. This positioned the library as a hub for innovation and collaboration. I’m working on doing the same at Stony Brook University, where I serve as Dean of Libraries.
What was the AI Lab’s intended aim, and how did you go about establishing an institutional AI policy to inform the lab’s structure and objectives?
The goal of the AI Lab was to make AI for all, accessible across all disciplines, and to spark campus-wide engagement. We focused on hands-on learning and ethical awareness. When you open the first AI lab in the world housed in a library, you don’t start with a strict policy; you focus on early adoption, experimentation, and building momentum. We introduced guidelines along the way, which later informed broader conversations about responsible use.
Could you outline the process of establishing the AI Lab at URI? What other offices and departments did you collaborate with in the process?
I first came up with the idea and shared it with a few library staff and faculty to get initial feedback. Then I brought it to the provost, who was very supportive. After that, I discussed it with two faculty members—one from philosophy and one from biomedical engineering. Together, we applied for a grant from the Champlin Foundation, which we received. We also secured additional funding from the provost’s office and two other deans, from the colleges of business and engineering.
That early support allowed us to launch the AI Lab in 2018. From the start, it was designed as an interdisciplinary space, with contributions and interest from across campus. The lab featured AI tools like drones, a robotic arm, smart textiles, and the first generation of a NVIDIA DGX high-performance AI computer, creating a hands-on, inclusive environment for exploration, teaching, and collaboration.
Did you encounter any obstacles along the way? If so, how did you overcome them?
Yes, as with any innovation, there were obstacles. The main resistance came from some library faculty and staff who didn’t see the value of having an AI Lab in the library. They felt it wasn’t part of the library’s core mission and were more focused on traditional functions.
I addressed this by listening, sharing the broader vision, and involving them early. I explained that libraries are evolving and have a role in supporting digital literacy and emerging technologies. Some eventually came around as they saw the student and faculty engagement and the interdisciplinary impact.
There was also some resistance from computer science faculty who questioned why the library had the NVIDIA DGX system and not them. They felt the lab should be housed in their department. However, over time, as they saw how the lab supported students, research, and interdisciplinary work, they came on board and began to collaborate.
That said, some were still not convinced. As leaders, we aim for consensus, but we have to accept that complete agreement is rarely achievable. What matters is that we stay focused on who we serve—our students. The students embraced the lab from the start. They understood it, used it, and helped bring it to life.
How did the AI Lab impact change on campus? What positive outcomes did you notice?
The AI Lab had a big impact on campus. One of the most important outcomes was embedding AI literacy into the curriculum. Several faculty across disciplines, especially in the humanities and social sciences, began integrating AI concepts into their courses. The lab helped open students’ eyes to the ethical dimensions of AI, not just the technical ones, which was key.
It also gave humanities students and faculty an edge. Many started exploring how AI could be an added skillset, especially helpful when preparing for jobs outside academia. It made AI feel accessible to them, not just something for computer scientists.
For the first time, we offered high-performance computing to students, not just researchers. They could run AI models and experiments using our NVIDIA DGX system. That kind of access was transformative. Students who had never worked with that level of computing power before were suddenly experimenting, learning, and even prototyping projects.
Overall, the lab created a shift in mindset. It made AI part of the everyday academic conversation across campus. The lab’s success contributed to broader institutional conversations about AI policy and governance and the role of libraries in leading change.
Do you have plans to establish a similar lab at Stony Brook University, and if so, how will your prior experience at URI inform the process?
Yes, I do plan to establish a similar AI Lab at Stony Brook University. In fact, we’ve already begun laying the groundwork. The rise of generative AI confirmed what I had been saying even before it gained mainstream attention. AI is a tsunami, and we are not ready for it. This only reinforced the urgency of creating a space where the campus can explore, learn, and respond to these rapid changes.
I was also part of the redesign of the SBU AI Innovation Institute, and I am actively building AI capacity in the libraries. We hired an AI Director, a Library Data Scientist, and a Director of Innovation, and are about to post a position for an AI Research Scientist. What I’ve done is embed AI into the library’s daily work and across other parts of the institution, not just within a lab.
It’s close to what some might describe as an “AI-first” approach, but I intentionally avoid that term due to its associations with exclusionary narratives, including links to white supremacy. Instead, we are building an inclusive, campus-wide model integrating AI into real practice. Most new job postings in the library will now include expectations for working with or engaging in AI-related work.
Are there any key takeaways you would like to share with other academic librarians and library directors seeking to establish similar hubs at their institutions?
Sometimes, I call out my peers gently and respectfully because while many have been talking about AI for years, their actual implementation is often timid. They treat AI as just another emerging technology that we can take our time with. But this moment is different.
Yes, there are valid concerns about misuse, but we can’t address those concerns effectively without real engagement. You cannot push back against something if you do not understand how it works.
Additionally, I’ve noticed that my peers usually say we need more funds to build AI capacity, which is true, but many don’t want to reallocate resources. That is the point of having a strategic plan; you need to do some internal reshuffling before asking for more.
That is why I advocate for building real capacity, not just hiring an instructional librarian to teach AI literacy, but embedding AI expertise into the library’s core. As library professionals, we bring strong values and ethics to the table. The world needs that now more than ever to ensure AI leads to better, more equitable outcomes.
Reading Room
A selection of multimedia content to fit your time commitment.
5 minutes
- Association of Research Libraries Releases Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence, by Cynthia Hudson Vitale. ARL News, 2024.
- Developing Your Institution’s AI Policy, by David Hatami. Harvard Business Impact, 2025.
- In the Room Where It Happens: Generative AI Policy Creation in Higher Education, by Esther Brandon et al. EDUCAUCE Review, 2025.
10 minutes
- The World of AI: How libraries are integrating and navigating this powerful technology, by Emily Udell. American Libraries, 2024.
- How Academic Libraries and HSS Can Shape AI Policy. The Authority File podcast, 2025.
- Making AI Generative for Higher Education: Adoption and Challenges Among Instructors and Researchers, by Claire Baytas and Dylan Ruediger. ITHAKA S+R, 2025.
20+ minutes
- Syllabi Policies for AI Generative Tools, Google Document by Lance Eaton featuring course and syllabus AI policies from almost 200 colleges and universities.
- AI at the Helm of Innovation: Librarians at the Forefront of AI Engagement and Integration, presentation by Jamillah Scott-Branch, Robert Laws, and Paschalia Terzi. Library 2.024 AI and Libraries Conference, 2024. Video below.
- AI Experimentation Policy for Libraries: Balancing Innovation and Data Privacy, by Varun Gupta. Public Library Quarterly, 2024.
Quiz Time
Test your AI literacy knowledge!
Discussion Questions
AI gives us a lot to think about. Share your thoughts in the comments!
- How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
- What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
Coming up
Next week, Leo Lo, Dean and Professor at the College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences at the University of New Mexico, and ACRL Past President, writes about prompt engineering. And we’ll talk to Clarivate’s product management group about the thinking that goes into designing gen-AI tools for scholarly workflows.
Take me to the Table of Contents.
Know someone who might be interested in this micro-course? Share the registration page with your colleagues! Make sure you’re registered to receive all eight weeks directly in your inbox.
Learn more about Clarivate and Choice’s LibTech Insights.
124 responses to “Week 3: AI Policy”
-
AI policy is important for protecting crucial information, such as personal information, and for regulating it.
-
AI policies should be drafted with all the relevant stakeholders who are involved.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
I believe that at my attending institution, this is an emerging policy that seems to be department specific and from there, faculty specific. I am not sure what my institution has done since first instituting a blanket honest policy for AI (basically do not use it and if you do, adequately and appropriately cite it).What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
I’m not really sure at this point. I think transparency is important but I also think reminding students to be socially, politically, and ecologically aware of their genAI usage is also important. All of that plus digital literacy is important to remember for creating AI policies I think. -
Policies should be drafted and discussed with the relevant stake holders. They should have guidelines principles before AI can be used.
-
My institution has updated its academic integrity policy to include that any use of AI without disclosure and permission is a violation.
For colleagues creating an AI policy I would suggest that instructors are specific with when and what uses are appropriate and to request that all prompts used are included with the submission.
-
The draft AI policy developed by institutions or colleges should be discussed with all relevant structures before the final document is finalised.
-
I am genuinely pleased to glance at this blog posts which carries tons of helpful facts, thanks for
providing these data. -
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
This is an emerging policy on our campus. The committee is made up of several departments, including a library representative.What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
The advice I would offer for creating AI policies is to remain realistic. Consider how it will be used, how it should be used, how to restrict what is necessary but provide room for growth and creative thinking. View the policy from every point of view and make it one that can evolve as needed. -
Important considerations for campus and larger community.
-
Important considerations!
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI? What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
At this point in time my institution has put together a task force within the library to start digging into this topic and seeing what we as a library team can do to support these policies.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI? – My institution is keen on integrating AI to our curriculum. At the moment, we don’t have AI yet.
Open mindedness is very important in learning AI.
-
I like the idea of an AI Lab that services as a space for discovery and discourse, but within the library.
-
At my institution, we do have policy on using the generative AI in teaching and learning. For library, we are providing the access to AI tools such as Scopus AI and few databases adopting the AI features. And yet, no policies created in libraries. To move forward, we need to apply the tips from this session.
-
Our institution’s library has worked to increase awareness of AI by educating both staff and patrons on the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and its potential future uses. In addition, AI has been integrated into our plagiarism detection system, allowing us to apply the concepts being taught in a practical way.
-
As for my institutions updating policies to include AI, I am not 100% where we are in the process. I know that my own department (Library) has taken time to create an AI policy and has been teaching more and more workshops on the ethics of AI etc.. I have heard discussions about a school wide policy and know some of those involved in the committee but I do not know if a policy has been implemented or if we are still in the review phase.
For those working on these policies, I would recommend assessing who would be good members of the committee (for example my school has a IT department and a Digital Learning department who are both heavily involved with campus technology and service to all areas of the school). I would also recommend “thinking like a student.” Look at syllabi and assignments and imagine how you approached them back when you were in school vs how students would do so now. You will find many similarities and differences that can help direct your policy -
To my knowledge, my university has left the decision and inforcement up to individual professors. To create an comprehensive policy might be restrictive.
-
My institution has neither policies nor any group set up to discuss policies for the use of AI.
-
Our Institution has not come up with an AI policy but a committee has been formed to steer the university on matters AI and come up with guidelines on its use in the institution.
-
We don’t have a policy but we do have a library statement/manifest on AI and AI LIteracy. It is continually updated as we encounter new situations or topic in Gen AI in Higher Ed.
-
My institution developed the guideline Responsible Use of Generative AI in Academic Work in 2024, created by the Office of the Provost to support our Student Academic Honesty Policy. It includes suggested syllabus statements for faculty on acceptable GenAI use, disclosure statements for students, and additional resources. The guideline was recently updated to cover our licensed GenAI tools.
My advice for colleagues developing an AI policy is to actively use and understand GenAI to create effective guidelines. I’d also recommend collaborating with faculty, the Provost’s office, and other key individuals to ensure the policy aligns with and supports the institution’s mission.
-
We are still talking about a policy. Faculty are encouraged to use Ai in the classroom with the students.
-
While we have adopted FAIR principles and data management plan in my organization we have not implemented an AI policy. The AI literacy lesson has been an eye opener and therefore by identifying the ethical principles and values that guide the development and deployment of AI within my organization, I will encourage my colleagues to create concepts such as fairness, transparency, accountability, and human well-being that will help establish a strong ethical foundation for the AI policy.
-
Our institution has updated its academic honesty policies to clearly define acceptable and responsible uses of AI. My advice to colleagues is to create policies that balance innovation with integrity, ensuring transparency and ethical practices.
-
My institution’s library has endeavored to raise awareness about AI by training both staff and users on the ethical issues surrounding AI and its future applications. It has also been included in our plagiarism checker to help put into practice what is being taught.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI? My school does not have campus-wide AI policies although the academic dishonesty policies are very clear on expectations and outcomes. Right now, each department or instructor creates their own policies. I think the administration is still trying to figure it out.
-
Los docentes en la Universidad prefieren realizar los exámenes escritos y/o orales, de esa manera comprobar el conocimiento, aprendizaje y entendimiento del estudiante y así verificar que los proyectos o ensayos que han realizado durante el periodo de clases evalúan la validez del contenido creado.
Aclara y explicar muy claro los conceptos de la IA, lo grave que puede ser utilizar únicamente de copia y pegar el contenido de la IA y eso ocasiona un plagio. Actualizar constantemente y capacitar sobre el uso correcto de la IA.
-
Creating AI policy should begin with a clear sense of purpose, not fear. Rather than reacting to the risks, institutions should focus on the values they want to uphold and the kind of learning environment they aim to foster with AI.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI? The institution is beginning the process of developing a Technology and AI Policy and Practice Manual. As a librarian, I am taking these courses to participate in the AI policy evaluation and development committee.
What advice would you give to your colleagues on creating AI policies?
It’s extremely important to understand everything from the basics of AI to the latest advances. We need to find out which universities already have AI Labs in their libraries and educate ourselves on the entire creation process and best practices. -
Mi institución está en proyecto de publicar la Política sobre IA que rija su uso, implementación y beneficios para la conmunidad académica.
-
My institution now has a AI policy and we have an AI policy at the state level as well.
-
My institution still don’t have any AI policy.
-
1_It has included artificial intelligence in its educational offerings, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Artificial Intelligence and in courses that discuss ethical and philosophical issues related to AI, but there are no specific references to an update to its academic honesty policies focused on the use of AI in defining authorship, automated plagiarism detection, and intellectual property protection, as well as the obligation to educate the university community on the ethical and responsible use of these technologies.
2_Promote digital and AI literacy: Educate both users and staff on ethical principles, responsible use of AI, intellectual property, and data privacy.
Establish clear ethical principles: ARL, which emphasize fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Create your own guides and protocols: best practices for designing guidelines
Form interdisciplinary committees: experts in ethics, technology, law, and library science to oversee the development and updating of AI and academic honesty policies.
Constantly assess risks and opportunities: Update policies with an emphasis on equity, universal access, and the detection of new forms of plagiarism and academic fraud. -
My institution is working on a policy. However, there are some faculty who have included course AI policies or expectations in their syllabus indicating acceptable use of AI.
-
My institution is still evaluating this policy.
-
QCC is in the process of incorporating artificial intelligence into its Student Code of Conduct, particularly in addressing unauthorized AI use, fabrication or falsification of work, and unapproved collaboration. Draft statements will be reviewed by Academic Affairs and, if necessary, legal counsel to ensure consistency and compliance. This decentralized yet guided approach allows flexibility within departments while upholding institutional ethical standards. Under consideration is creating a space for training and exploration.
-
There is a need to create AI policy for our institution.
-
Nuestra escuela aún no cuenta con una política de IA, sin embargo el uso de las mismas son aceptables dentro de los parámetros éticos del uso y referencia de las fuentes, de parte de la docencia se ha pretendido enfocar como una herramienta más de la cual se pueden ayudar para desarrollar las capacidades que nativamente se generan en el desarrollo del estudio como el razonamiento y el criterio propio.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
This question made me check my university’s honor code and other academic integrity policies, I’m really surprised to see that the honor code hasn’t been updated since August 2020. It doesn’t mention AI at all. Our state university system policy is that anyone can use AI and students are responsible for following the guidelines set by each faculty member. When I was looking for information about AI policies on my campus, I found a lot of conflicting information. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for an undergrad to figure out acceptable use of AI, especially after they have been accused of violating the honor code by using AI. This actually prompted me to contact our student conduct office to ask if the honor code will be updated to mention generative AI use as potential academic dishonesty. Our center for teaching and learning has great resources for faculty though, including syllabus statements for AI policies ranging from any AI is okay to all AI is prohibited.What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
When I’m working with my teaching faculty colleagues, I encourage them to write a transparent statement about use of AI that is really clear about what is allowed and what is prohibited. I recently got an assignment from a faculty member who had a great AI statement. I don’t want to copy and paste it here, but it lists exactly what is acceptable and how it needs to be documented. Her students need to provide all of their chatlogs and also need to provide a written explanation of their reasons for using gen AI for the assignment. -
Our college system has colleges across the state drafting their own policies on AI, and as for advice I would say as I have learbed in this lession check egos at the door and make sure all parties that will be directly affected by student AI use are in the room and have a seat at the table for these discussions.
-
Our institution has been working on developing a policy, however, it seems like the messaging would benefit from a more unified approach starting at the District Level. My advise, as has been mentioned already, is to develop this as soon as possible. I’m also thinking that the more experience that people have with the various AI tools can greatly assist with addressing possible blind spots that could occur due to a lack of awareness.
-
Our institution has updated its academic integrity policies to explicitly address the use of AI tools. The revision clarifies what constitutes unacceptable or misuse of AI. Students are encouraged to disclose when AI has been used in assignments or research outputs and use proper methods of citation.
-
Our institution is working on drafting an AI policy. As we are part of system, we take a lot of direction from the main campus. I think it is important to get feedback from all stakeholders on campus, including administration, faculty, staff, and students.
-
My institution has created an AI committee howver an AI olicy is not in
place at this time.
The articles in this session gave some great ideas on how to develop and implement AI policies. I would advise collegues to develop an AI policy as soon as possible. Especially given the exponential rate that GENAI is growing. -
Our institution has updated its academic honesty policies to explicitly address the use of AI tools. The revisions clarify what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable use of AI in coursework, research, and publications. Students and faculty are encouraged to disclose when AI has been used in assignments or research outputs, and guidance is provided on proper attribution and verification of AI-generated content.
For colleagues creating AI policies, I would advise focusing on clarity and practicality. Policies should define acceptable AI use, set clear expectations for attribution, and address issues like plagiarism and data privacy. It’s also important to offer guidance rather than just restrictions—helping students and staff understand how AI can enhance learning and research ethically. Finally, regularly review and update the policy as AI technologies evolve.
-
This has been the most important lesson, it has opened my eyes to how vital it is for libraries and librarians to get involved in the development and use of AI in our institutions.
-
Our school does not have an AI policy yet.
I think I would start by carrying out a survey on how faculty are using AI currently for teaching and what different actors in the academic sphere think about using AI and its implications. -
Our university is currently in the midst of updating the Academic Integrity policy and my colleague and I are on the Ad-Hoc committee, so fortunately we are able to contribute some suggestions. We’d like to see some more specific AI language so will see how it goes.
-
1. AI has been added to our Acceptable Use of Library Technology policy and we have a brief internal policy on use of AI.
2. I recommend trying to involve teams that the author suggests, and finding where implementing AI is actually helpful versus identifying where it could be detrimental, especially when considering ethical implications. Yes, AI is being introduced everywhere, but this has had consequences where no one asked for it, such as the example the author provided of authors having their content sold to tech companies w/o their consent by their publishers. One thing librarians may be able to do is connect with database providers and see if/how they are leveraging AI in their services. Depending on the scope of use, this could inform whether the library wants to continue using their services, or even expand their contract if they find LLM useful. It all depends on where it’s being used. -
1. One way our university has updated its academic honesty policy was through a “Generative Artificial Intelligence Position Statement” which describes the policy as a living document. Another way our university has updated policy is by including the library in the “Room.” At a recently held committee meeting the ALL campus libraries were invited to review the draft policy document to include their specific concerns. One concern expressed was the apparent omission of campus-specific user (information behavior) research that should have informed the (draft) living document.
2. My advice to colleagues at my institution, which I believe the reading from Hatami (2025) seems to support, is to do the user research to “assess current AI use and needs” and “implement pilots and collect feedback” and let the evidence from the findings inform/design the AI policy and future we want. -
My institution does not have an AI policy, and this course will go a long way in helping me champion this cause to my University. Having understood the need to have an AI policy in my institution I am gone to begin a conversion towards this endeavor.
-
My institution has updated its academic honesty policies to include AI, allowing the use of AI; however, they must inform the lecture/s before using it. They have also reminded students that sometimes AI tools may give false information and citations. Therefore, students are advised to evaluate information before using it. Moreover, the policies include information about plagiarism, and works should be submitted in students’ own words, still acknowledging their sources. They have also been informed via the institution’s policies that works submitted would be checked for AI content using software like Turnitin.
The advice I would give to colleagues about creating AI policies is not to work in silos and to work with stakeholders to ensure institutional accountability.
-
My institution has an Academic Integrity Program and the entire institutional community is part of it. However, the people who collaborate directly in the Campus and National Academic Integrity Committees have a special participation, as well as the people who perform the role of Ambassadors of Academic Integrity and the teachers of the Integrity Academy. As a result, the updates are made by them. As a librarian, we have the role to promote and use the policies and principles they establish.
-
My institution has developed an AI policy to the extent that students are asked not to use it to complete assignments, or declare use when appropriate, but are looking at the wider picture to incorporate a broader use policy, alongside developing AI literacy skills.
-
1. There are no updates on the academic honesty policy to accommodate AI
2. Currently, we do not have an institution wide AI usage policy. We only have a guideline and this has been used by other departments to re-generate their own guidelines suited for their particular departments. -
“Patricia Farnan
August 11, 2025
My institution is in the early stages of developing policy, and I don’t actually know where it is at currently in terms of progress. I know the Library is involved but we aren’t really leading the charge – it’s coming from other areas of the institution. However, we are certainly looking at AI tools available to us in our databases and other tools, currently at the assessment stage.”I’m in the same situation as Patricia. I hope to improve…
-
The idea of developing and maintaining an administrative and scholarly taskforce in college libraries feels a little unrealistic to me. It has been hard enough getting the funds for full-time workers in my library, and they are still cutting down further. I’m worried that more effort will be put towards managing the AI in our schools, over having actual librarians and library staff.
-
My institution is in the early stages of developing policy, and I don’t actually know where it is at currently in terms of progress. I know the Library is involved but we aren’t really leading the charge – it’s coming from other areas of the institution. However, we are certainly looking at AI tools available to us in our databases and other tools, currently at the assessment stage.
-
We currently do not have an AI policy. However, the university is conducting capacity building sessions for faculty on AI awareness and tools. This approach is beneficial because it allows faculty to contribute their insights, ensuring a well-crafted policy.
-
Language about the unauthorized use of AI or using it without attribution has been added to our Academic Integrity policy. I believe many instructors use similar language in their syllabus statements, as well. Beyond that, we still haven’ t done much work on any further policy. Even IS has been pretty quiet until recently about the process of getting certain AI tools approved. I believe we’re going to start talking about it a lot more this academic year. I did get myself invited to what I believe was the inaugural “AI Literacy” committee meeting. It was mainly IS, 2 faculty, and me (research & Instruction librarian).
-
afortunately our institution has established clear and ethical guidelines for the use of AI in the educational field and promotes transparency and responsibility in the use of AI tools.
-
So far our university has had a lot of discussion and has formed a committee, but I’m not sure how far that has gone yet. The library is learning and discussing AI, but we are somewhat waiting for guidance from above as far as policies. We do plan to start including a little about AI in library instruction, and have discussed other ways that may be beneficial to use it, but no set policies yet.
-
1. How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include A1?
I’m a librarian and I know that many students and staff are using AI tools for various tasks but I’m not sure if our institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI. As a library, we also do not have academic integrity policy that include AI. However, I do add the component of GenA1 in my information literacy classes and sensitize our users about the advantages and disadvantages of using GenAI in academia.
2. What advice do you for colleagues about creating A1 policy?
Now that I have gained the essential knowledge on developing A1 policy and as librarian, I would advise my colleagues to know that AI policy is complex, creating such policy should not just be about compliance or technological expertise. It is about aligning core values, privacy, standing mission of the library as space and for exchange of ethical knowledge. In addition, I will inform them that as an institution the best way to develop AI policy is to first develop a task team and include various sections/departments of the institution (IT, academic staff students, librarians and external stakeholders). This diverse of people will assist, add value and tackle the complex questions when crafting AI policies. They will address not only what AI can do but what it should do and for whom. -
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
My institution has developed clear directives for the responsible use of AI in its academic integrity policy, including what acceptable and unacceptable use is when students are engaged in academic work, requiring the students and the staff to acknowledge the use of any AI tools, and that academic misconduct will occur if a student presents AI generated material as their own without any acknowledgment at all. It is up to the students to be aware of the policy and that the explicit expectation is for staff to teach students about AIs’ powers and dangers, i.e., inaccuracies, bias, and fictitious citations.
What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
I would advise being clear, pragmatic, and flexible when creating AI so that it can adapt to fast-paced technological changes. The policy should contain definitions, ethical and acceptable uses of AI, and provide tangible, relevant examples in the context of your specific academic environment. The best approach is to work collaboratively with fellow faculty, IT services, and the library, thereby enhancing the credibility and holistic nature of the policy. Additionally, I would develop training and awareness activities for students and staff, which, in conjunction with the expectations, will promote understanding and consideration of the underlying thinking that informs these expectations.
-
I am unaware of the policy for AI. The Library is working on writing a policy for AI at the library level. We also have an AI committee that meets to test out different forms of AI monthly.
-
1) How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
My university does have an AI systems governance policy and is directed by a committee that has created guidelines for instructors to follow should AI be used in courses and teaching. Our writing center has also written out guidelines and instructions for using and citing AI. I like to think that our university is moving quite smoothly into AI tools and we are actually trying to show instructors how AI can be used responsibly.
2) What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
I would say bring it up in your committees. I think following this week’s readings, show instructors and get all stakeholders involved. This I think can help everyone with learning AI literacy and once there is some familiarity with the tools, policies can be updated and/or created. I do think constant assessment of AI tools and the field should be kept in mind and done consistently enough so policies hold up to with these developments. -
My institution is in the process of finalizing an AI policy. Faculty in the meantime are sharing processes on how they have handled AI in their courses. The university has had seminars on AI that impacts the different fields of study but not necessarily workshops. The library should have a meaning contribution by adding an AI component into its Information Literacy program.
-
The policy at my own institution is that instructors can set their own policies for each course, and our pre-existing “academic dishonesty” policy covers other cases. I don’t think that this is quite sufficient even for the classroom, never mind all the other ways AI could impact us (such as scraping online respositories). Though it’s something that the guidance given to instructors asks them to be aware of access issues, such as the fact that some might be able to afford better generative AI models than others (or different tools altogether).
-
AI policies on campus should be built through collaboration, transparency, and informed decision-making. Involving the right campus groups—like IT, research offices, and faculty governance—ensures the policy is relevant and effective. Transparency statements play a key role by helping users understand how AI tools work and how to use them responsibly. Libraries can strengthen these efforts by joining consortia to share resources and negotiate fair terms. A strong AI policy isn’t made in isolation—it’s a community effort that guides ethical and smart use of technology.
-
Academic Affairs created a policy, but how AI is to be used in a particular course is up to the instructor. Syllabus statements can be crafted that inform students of expectations.
AI discussion in library one-shots is up to the course instructor. As librarians we can show the tool but also discuss the pros and cons of using that tool. There is a huge difference between databases AI tools and generative AI like Chat GPT. Some instructors may know the differences and other not. -
AI policy in libraries should guide the ethical use of AI tools, ensuring privacy, transparency, and academic integrity. It must evolve with technology while aligning with institutional values and user needs.
-
Presently, there are no policies or guidelines at the College.
-
There is a committee, which I think is all faculty, working on a policy about AI use in the classroom. Many I think are worried that students will use AI to write their papers, so that is the impetus for the policy. But at the same time, I think many are aware that having AI skills will be useful for the students, so they want to create opportunities to train students in AI as well.
-
Our institution has not updated its Academic Integrity Policy to include AI. We are in the process of developing working groups to tackle different aspects and concerns about AI. When making a policy I would suggest to make one that goes across the board so that students don’t have to navigate an AI minefield, as they do now when AI use is left up to the individual professors. I would also suggest they find out how AI use fits into their mission statements, sustainability goals, and ethics.
-
No AI policies at my institution as of yet!
-
Our school doesn’t specifically have an AI policy, but they are getting a committee together to learn more and to begin implementing change.
-
We are at a very early stage of compiling guidelines for AI that will eventually form a policy document that will guide all the divisions within the Institution. Consistency and transparency play a major role as some of the core principles and more crucial Institution need to adapt in order to integrate reviews and revisions of their policy.
-
Our college library staff educate library patrons on ethical use of AI tools
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
My institution has deliberately not updated its Student Academic Integrity policy to include artificial intelligence. However, from the Vice Provost for Student Success’s FAQ page, an interpretation of the Student Academic Integrity policy regarding the use of AI is provided. It reads,Q: I suspect a student used artificial intelligence to complete their work. What do I select for violation type?
A: Based on the Student Academic Integrity Policy, any form of “unauthorized assistance” constitutes cheating. If the use of artificial intelligence is not authorized for the assignment in question, the violation is “cheating”.
This approach leaves the decision up to the instructor. So, at my institution, AI policy regarding student integrity or honesty is at a very localized level, in particular, in individual classes.
What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
AI policies will be most helpful if they are broad enough to allow for experimentation and curiosity in its use. However, it must be specific enough in the its protections of users’ privacy and safety. Also, the broadest spectrum of constituents from all levels and roles available to construct a policy regarding AI is essential.
-
In my institution, the librarians have begun to broadcast AI tools for academic purposes, but warning about bad practices like plagiarism or depending too much on IA. This information is disseminated online.
I don´t have experience about creating an AI policy, but I think that the first step is using the AI tools to know what we can do with them and how works. -
My advice to my colleagues on creating AI policy:
1. Sit with yourself and your syllabi. Think about the four areas that AI can be used to help students critically think and learn. Then, look at activities of your syllabi that can be transformed into AI activities – brainstorming, ideation, etc.
2. Divide assignments into chunks that can allow students to use AI (because they are going to use it anyway) but will not create a final product for the student.
3. Change the way you envision and apply capstone assignments
4. Spend time (at least two classes if available) teaching students how to see and how to write citations in their discipline’s format. Without this instruction, students will never see if AI has created a hallucinated citation in their work.
5. In policy statements, be clear about the fact that you recognize the existence of AI and that students are prone to try to use it to complete work. State clearly the places where AI can be used and the types of assignments on which it can be used. Be clear about and provide examples of acceptable AI use outcomes. This should give students more guidance that steers them away from danger areas. I would include an anecdote or reading on the atrophy to the brain that occurs when AI does all of your thinking for you. I have always been a rather direct speaker, so I would not sooth the feelings of students who have too much to do. -
OUr policy has been updated to include that AI generative material is not accepted. IN a couple of weeks, before school begins, we will have a campus wide discussiononthis as there is still a lot of confusion. Hopefully we will begin to se some campus-wide guidelines for the next academic year.
-
We have a policy in place. We also have supporting resources to help us.
-
My college currently has a task force exploring acceptable uses, ethics, safety, and policy of AI use. At present, the only mention of it in policies is under the heading Academic Integrity, Cheating or Plagiarism. As one of the examples of what not to do, the policy states, “unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence.”
I am unclear about what deems a use as unauthorized. Does it mean that it is fair game if you cite it? Does it mean that you cannot use it to author work? What about checking work? I think wording like this is why the school put the task force in place.
-
My institution is in the process of implementing a college-wide AI policy as we speak, but the going is slow as input from faculty and staff is often contradicting. This isn’t a statement against the faculty and staff, but rather a statement about how AI literacy is definitely affecting how quickly the process moves.
As for advice, I have a two-parter:
1. It’s worth it even to put a small blurb about how AI gets its data (yes, there will be pushback from those who see this as an anti-AI stance rather than an internet and information safety stance).2. And, AI literacy must be ongoing and guidance for both students and faculty should be written into the AI policy if at all possible. Nothing will get done if only one small body knows how to use AI and how it works, after all.
-
Our institution is developing a policy… kind of.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
After reviewing my university’s handbook, I did not find any specific updates to the academic honesty policy that mention AI. However, I do know that AI tools are offered to students as a way to assist with their academic work. Personally, I would encourage students to use AI as a brainstorming partner—something to help them organize their thoughts or explore ideas before beginning their writing.What advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
When developing an AI policy, I would recommend forming an AI task force, as suggested by Harvard Business Review. This group should include faculty, staff, and student representatives to ensure a range of perspectives. It’s important that the resulting policy be communicated with transparency and clarity to avoid misunderstandings.Before finalizing any policy, a pilot or field test should be conducted to better understand how students and faculty are currently using AI and what their needs are. Only after gathering this insight should university leadership—including the board and president—be involved to decide whether to adopt the recommendations into official policy or revisit the process based on feedback.
-
I feel like our campus AI policy, created about 2 years ago, was written as a a knee-jerk response to the fear of student cheating. I’m not certain that it addresses faculty or staff use of AI at all. Basically, the use of AI for students is governed by specific faculty, so students will be navigating four or five different AI policies per semester, and up to 10 different policies in an academic year. To me, that makes our “policy” ripe for misunderstanding if not outright abuse.
Now, we are seeing AI features added to vendor products–getting summaries or key points of articles, being guided to related readings, etc. How will faculty who have outlawed generative AI for student assignments deal with that? Will they even be aware of it? I feel pretty marginalized as a staff member on a campus that values the faculty voice above all else, so I’m conflicted about how to handle this. -
My institution as created AI guidelines for researchers; central IT holds all the licenses and has to approve use cases, which makes experimenting with AI difficult.
-
This is something I need to look into because I honestly have no idea. I am new to this library and to academic libraries in general, that is why I am taking this course. But, with all of this great information, I feel the need to look deeper into where AI is on our campus, in the library, and where it is heading for the future. I put a lot of trust into people that I feel know more about technology. I do appreciate very much though the necessary inclusion of voices at the table. I think it is hard though to get everyone together and then to be on the same page with various levels of comfort and learning, it could be very challenging. These all seem like great ideas and I appreciate people sharing their experiences and concerns with us. I can see the library being very involved (or should be…), and I love the idea of counselors, IT, departments that have already dealt with technologies for learners with differing abilities, and more.
-
The best advice I can give for anyone working on a policy comes from my IEEE CertifAIed training: define what results you do not want instead of those you do. (It’s much easier to define a negative.) I also recommend using their duty holders (developer, integrator, operator, maintainer, regulator) instead of stakeholders when examining potential impacts of AI products and services.
-
I have been actively using AI tools for some time, and became more actively engaged when easier to use tools like ChatGPT became available to the public. I have had the opportunity to serve on university-wide committees to establish guidelines and to provide training to other faculty in the ethical use of AI. With a colleague, I also created a LibGuide about AI tools for students and faculty. Many researchers in our community will never have a need for the AI Lab on campus, but they will find guidance about appropriate use, citation, and the ethics of AI use handy at their point-of-need.
My institution has guidelines that address the many facets of AI use and also provides space for faculty to exercise their academic freedom when it comes to how and why they might incorporate it in their instruction and research.
-
Our Institution is still actively engaged with the exploration of AI and as a result I was unable to find any written policy that deals with AI specifically. The issue is covered indirectly by policies dealing with academic dishonesty. The Academic Support Centre has developed a comprehensive guide and frequently runs teaching workshops which help teaching staff to keep abreast of developments.
With regard to developing an AI policy, it is important to consult widely, work collaboratively and transparently. In these early stages, while AI is still such a new and rapidly evolving feature, I feel that it is more important to create guidelines which are more flexible and easily updated than policies. -
The university I work at has updated its academic honesty policies to explicitly address the use of generative AI, integrating it into existing definitions of plagiarism, cheating, and fabrication. Faculty are encouraged to set clear expectations in their syllabi, including whether AI use is permitted, how it must be cited, and how it connects to learning objectives. The university provides guidance and template language to support consistent policy implementation, emphasizing transparency, ethical use, and equity. For colleagues developing AI policies, the key advice is to align them with academic integrity standards, offer clear and context-specific guidance, educate students on responsible AI use, and ensure policies remain adaptable as the technology evolves.
-
It is interesting to see that in some of the presentations, educators were given the option to op-out of AI integration, for the moment.
The people I work with are going full steam ahead with AI integration into everything. The IT, Libraries, teaching, Legal (copyright) department and management are all keen to get a handle on the latest tools. I can see some people falling behind.
We have some of those generative AI detection tools working for us to identify student hand-ins that are completely AI generated.
I think it would be a good idea to have a lot more AI education for the students and staff that focus on ethics. They tend to be ‘how-to’ classes rather than ‘why-to’. -
My institute has created a pretty robust AI policy and it has been updated already in the year or so it was created, and that is the guideline by which my library follows for its own AI usage and instruction. I wish there would be more emphasis on the importance of being transparent about AI usage in academic output, but I feel confident that our library offerings in AI pull enough weight in discussing the ethical implications of generative AI usage. I would definitely recommend to other libraries to closely examine their institutional AI policy and ask what gaps in topics and coverage (e.g. a lack of ethics guidance) could they fill in with their own library programming, as appropriate.
-
We haven’t developed any AI policy in our institution but we advise students to fact check their answer provided by AI before presenting their works.
-
There is no official AI syllabus statement published by the University.
-
Our current honor code only mentions AI once and it is very vague. They do state that utilizing AI is cheating unless specified by the faculty member or the Office of Disability and Access. This seems extremely outdated and does not touch the topic of AI at all other than the standard “AI is evil and you are cheating if you use it.”
-
Our institution has not come up with a policy.
-
We haven’t finalized an institutional policy on academic honesty and AI yet, but we’re actively engaged in conversations around it. Since AI is evolving so rapidly, our approach is still exploratory—we’re trying to balance clarity and flexibility while we assess how students, faculty, and library staff are using these tools in real academic contexts.
My advice to colleagues working on AI policy is to start small but collaboratively. Bring together voices from IT, research, teaching staff, and the library to ensure the policy reflects real use cases and values. Also, don’t underestimate the power of clear communication—even a simple guidance document or FAQ can go a long way in helping students and faculty navigate AI ethically while a more formal policy is in the works.
-
The AI & academic policies at my institution are set on a course by course, professor by professor, basis which is not ideal. I like the idea suggested in the ARL Guiding Principles of having a library AI statement; it would be good to have public platform from which to share librarian’s expertise and support in using AI.
-
There are really two documents that govern AI use at my institution, an institutional Statement on Use of AI and an Academic Misconduct Policy that has been updated to include examples where AI use would fall under previously identified prohibited misconduct. While the latter is helpful in that it clearly indicates specific situations where AI use would constitute academic misconduct, both documents are very limited by the nature of being created with the continuing evolution and wide ranging nature of the technology in mind. The lack of a clear definition of what constitutes “AI” makes it difficult to really nail down an enforceable and clear policy that is understood by all stakeholders. Most decision making is left up to individual instructors currently. I would imagine that this is not a fixed policy but one that will be (or at least should be) revisited regularly as these technologies application and capability becomes more clearly articulated in more definitive language.
As for advice for colleagues? I would have to say that the best I can offer is that we really need to think about what we are trying to teach and how we are trying to teach it. Not only that, but the point of assessments have to be made explicit for our students so that they have buy-in to the course and its course work. It is certainly not an easy lift for overworked faculty, but if we are to be sure that we are credentialing students who are leaving our institutions with the education we say they are we need to be building that rapport and community with our students to ensure that work being done for our classes is the result of the human effort we are looking to measure.
-
AI policy has been discussed and preliminary policies created, but I recently heard that further evaluation of these policies needed to take place before anything is finalized. I know some departments are having internal discussions and each professor is being encouraged to define their policy for their classes. As is likely the case in most institutions, some faculty are actively involved and learning about AI and its applications, while others are treating it like a novelty that they want no part of. The library is trying to learn all we can and will be providing some workshops throughout the year about AI in specific uses or applications. We hope that students and faculty attend and can learn from these sessions.
-
My school is still in the process of writing policy to cover the use of AI. The library has been asked to contribute to this process but we do not have specific representation on the committee in charge of writing the policy. Caution needs to be used during this process because we shouldn’t ban the use of AI outright, rather, we should teach students ethical uses of AI and especially give them the skills to recognize AI used in other writings. Right now, it is at the discretion of faculty whether to allow the use of AI, and in what capacity in their courses and assignments. My advice for other librarians in this same situation is to try and get representation on those committees working on AI policy for your school if possible. Communication is so important during such times, and I feel that librarians are able to offer unique input since we are often a bridge between faculty needs and student needs.
-
How has your institution updated its academic honesty policies to include AI?
All research work goes through plagiarism check which is AI intergratedWhat advice do you have for colleagues about creating AI policy?
Educate and seek a culture of enquiry -
At my institution a consortia was formed between the library, general IT, faculty governance and research departments where they had several AI sandboxed to discuss, introduce, explain and give clarity on different AI tools and how to ethically use them.
Out of that a document developed that serves as a comprehensive guideline on AI use at the institution. We do not have any written policies yet. Some lecturers are still totally against the use of AI in generating essays/written assignments. Turnitin is not only used to detect plagiarism, but also the percentage generative AI used in theses, dissertations and essays/written assignments.
A policy have to intentionally, ethically, and collaboratively transform the future of AI use and the policy should be transparent and allows a culture of inquiry and critical thinking through education and engagement. -
There is no such specific AI policy in my institution, but the articles are AI score-checked before publication by plagiarism detection software.
-
We do have an Academic Integrity policy and an online course that includes a chapter on Use of AI , addressing : Using artificial intelligence responsibly + Risks with using artificial intelligence. Includes mention of assessment submissions and that we use Turnitin, an artificial intelligence report may be generated, highlighting text detected as content potential generated from artificial intelligence and provides a percentage figure that represents how much of the assessment is likely to have been created by generative artificial intelligence. Unlike the Turnitin Similarity Report, the artificial intelligence report is only available to staff to view after your submission. Your lecturer will not depend solely on this report, however if the use of artificial intelligence is identified, your lecturer may confirm your understanding and the process of arriving at the assessment solution via a competency conversation. This might be a meeting or conversation with them to explain your understanding of certain concept, knowledge, or process.
-
We do not have a university AI policy, but it’s a beneficial idea.
-
In my institution there is no such AI policy yet. But in research and publication we check AI score by plagiarism detection software.
-
Nil.
-
I think it is a wonderful idea to have workshops for AI. It would inform everyone the correct way to use the AI tools/
-
Agreed, it is better to learn and be informed.
-
-
As of right now, the policy is essentially that faculty make the ultimate decision in allowing or disallowing AI use in the classroom. That said, this statement regarding faculty is encompassed in a broader policy on academic integrity and anti-plagiarism throughout the campus. There are also some resources for faculty on getting started with AI tools, some of the issues with using AI ethically, and resources on AI detection tools and the pros and cons of those. The policy is evolving, but it is an excellent framework to refer to when thinking about the upcoming fall semester. My advice would be to embrace the policy as an iterative solution. As AI tools, technologies, and trends continue to evolve, so should we.
-
While our institution has some policies in the use of AI for academic works, there is much room to polish. There isn’t much knowledge about it within our faculty and students, so it is expected of us as librarians to instruct and guide them. But it is mostly left to the instructor to allow or not the use of it.
-
We are currently in the process of writing our AI policy. It has to go through revisions again. Getting the details just right is so important. We know AI will be used, but we want to provide ethical parameters and educate our students on the best way to utilize this new tool, and how AI can be detrimental if they only use it to “satisfice” or cheat.
-
We do not currently have an AI policy for the public library where I work. There has not been a lot of demand for it though.
-
We update our academic integrity policy once a semester following discussions that include the librarian (me), the IB program coordinator, the Academic Dean and the Deputy Head of School. As a small high school, we can for the moment keep our process streamlined. However, we mull over how much specific details or relevant examples we can provide in our policy. We also take into account that our policy needs to remain short and clear so that students read and understand the school policy, not just the teachers, admin and parents (we are a linguistically diverse international school). It’s essential to state what the guidelines are and to make the policy easy to access and read and not bury the important message in a series of bureaucratic statements and phrasing.
-
With the suggestion of all the stakeholders specifically IT cell, research cell, library and chief of the faculties, AI policy can be made in my institution. Copyright is the most priority in drafting the policy. I suggest to include their options for the intellectual property rights reserved
-
At our institution, a larger policy and model are in the works through the AI Committee and a recently hired AI Consultant. Currently we have a very generic statement on the awareness and use of AI in our syllabus but ultimately it is up to each professor to outline clear instruction on what is/not appropriate use for AI in their course. When creating AI policy transparency and explicit use become key components, as well as weigh in from IT teams, faulty, and librarians.
-
As of right now we do not have a campus-wide policy. Each instructor designs their own policy.
-
Our institution has developed guidelines for AI as part of its academic integrity policy and have developed a module which is a mandatory commencement process. The guidelines which focus on using AI responsibly cover citing and acknowledging AI, broader academic integrity and AI issues, generative AI security, and ethical use. Case studies providing example of AI academic integrity breaches are also covered. These guidelines were also updated recently – February this year. To complement these updates new workshops were developed for staff and students.
Creating an AI policy relies on establishing guiding principles, assessing current AI use, establishing pilot sessions that incorporate feedback and intentionally organizing how an AI policy will be implemented across the institution.
-
Our school has not designed a policy specifically for AI though it is in the works. This course is a tremendous help.
For colleagues creating a policy I suggest discussing with your PLN then cross curricular to hear from many. Transparency and being literal is very necessary. It will take several attempts to create a good policy and know that it will need to be updated.
Take me to the Table of Contents.
Leave a Reply