FOI_25-271 Academic misconduct by category and policies on Artificial Intelligence
Date of response: 09 October 2025
We have now considered your request of 14 September 2025 for the following information:
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting the following recorded information held by your university. I am seeking aggregate, anonymised statistical data. I do not require any personal data relating to individuals.
My request pertains to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) detection tools and academic misconduct cases at your institution for the academic years 2019-2020 through to 2024-2025.
Please provide the information for each academic year as specified below. If full data for the 2024-2025 academic year is not yet available, please provide figures up to the latest available date and specify that date.
If answering all of the questions would trigger the price/time limit, please prioritise answering questions 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2.
Section 1: Institutional Context and Student Numbers
Definition of Academic Year: Please state your institution's definition of an 'academic year'
(e.g., September to August) for the periods covered by this request.
Question 1. Student Enrolment:
For each of the following academic years, please provide the estimated number of taught students for your entire institution:
• 2019-2020
• 2020-2021
• 2021-2022
• 2022-2023
• 2023-2024
• 2024-2025
Section 2: AI Detection Tools
Question 2.1) Use of AI Detection Tools: Does your institution currently use any software tool(s) or feature(s) that claim to detect the presence of AI-generated text in student submissions, which are made available to academic staff/markers as part of the assessment process?
• If YES:
• Please specify the name(s) of the organisation(s) or product(s) providing this AI detection tool/feature (e.g., Turnitin's AI detection feature, GPTZero, etc.).
• For which academic years has this AI detection tool/feature been actively enabled and in use for student submissions at your institution?
• If NO:
• Please state 'No AI detection tools currently in use for student submissions’ and, if appropriate, specify a date that AI detection was disabled for student’s submissions or that AI detection features were not enabled when they became available (i.e., Turnitin).
• Please summarise how your institution detects AI misuse without detection software.
Section 3: Academic Misconduct Cases
Question 3.1) Total Confirmed Cases: For each of the academic years listed below, please provide the total number of confirmed cases of academic misconduct across your entire institution:
• 2019-2020
• 2020-2021
• 2021-2022
• 2022-2023
• 2023-2024
• 2024-2025
Question 3.2) Breakdown by Category (with specific focus on AI misuse): From the confirmed cases of academic misconduct reported above, please provide a breakdown by category for each academic year. We are particularly interested in cases specifically related to the misuse of generative AI tools
(e.g., submitting AI-generated text as one's own work, which may be categorised as 'ghosting', 'contract cheating', or 'unauthorised use of AI').
• Please provide the number of confirmed cases for the following categories (or your institution's closest equivalent categories) for each academic year:
• Misuse of Generative AI Tools (if separately tracked): [Number of cases]
• Contract Cheating / Ghosting: [Number of cases]
• If 'Misuse of Generative AI Tools' is not separately tracked and is instead included within 'Contract Cheating / Ghosting', please specify how cases of this nature are categorised and provide an estimate or indication of the proportion of cases within this 'Contract Cheating / Ghosting' category that were attributed to the misuse of generative AI, if such data or estimation is recorded.
• Plagiarism (excluding cases primarily attributed to AI misuse, if distinguishable): [Number of cases]
• Collusion: [Number of cases]
• Cheating in Examinations: [Number of cases]
• Falsification of Data: [Number of cases]
• Other categories of Academic Misconduct: [Number of cases] (Please specify major categories if they account for more than 5% of total cases in any given year.)
Section 4: Institutional Policy and Training on Generative AI
Question 4.1) Public Policy on Generative AI Use: Does your institution have a publicly available policy or clear guidance for students regarding the acceptable and unacceptable use of generative AI tools in assessed work?
• If YES:
• Please provide a link to the relevant policy/guidance document or attach a copy.
• If NO:
• Please state 'No publicly available policy/guidance'.
Question 4.2) Mandatory AI-Specific Academic Integrity Training: Does your institution provide mandatory academic integrity training/education for all students that specifically addresses the appropriate use of generative AI tools?
• If YES:
• In which academic years (e.g., 2022-23, 2023-24) was this mandatory training/education in place?
Our response:
We regret that on this occasion it is not possible to provide the requested information.
Under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, we can confirm that the University does hold the information requested, however on this occasion it is not possible for us to provide any of the information relating to the breakdown of all cases of academic misconduct by category; misuse of generative AI tools, plagiarism, collusion, cheating in exams and falsification of data,
We have determined that the cost of finding and assembling the requested information will exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ as defined by section 12 of the Act and the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004/3244.
'The ‘appropriate limit’ of £450, which equates to 18 hours’ work, as defined by the Information Commissioner’s Office, can relate to one request in its entirety or to a series of linked requests. If the University cannot locate, retrieve and extract some or all of the requested information within the 18 hours we are not obliged to retrieve any of the requested information.
Information relating to cases of formal academic misconduct, is held within our Student and Academic Services, Learning and Teaching Services (LTS) and our Student Senate Disciplinary Committee (SSDC) departments (where cases were referred for formal disciplinary).
To explain our position, LTS record cases of academic misconduct, and those suspected cases which were ‘confirmed’ following a formal disciplinary investigation (records of such are held by SSDC), as a breach of our General Regulations for Students (Regulation 18- Plagiarism and collusion and Academic integrity). This regulation is not specific cases involving misuse of AI tools, plagiarism, collusion, cheating in exams or falsification of data separately, as it covers plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating as one category) so this would mean a review of the case files to provide the breakdown by category as per your request, paying particular attention to those involving misuse of Artificial Intelligence.
For the period 2019-20 to 2024-25, there were 1,473 confirmed cases of academic misconduct logged as a breach of Regulation 18 (where the student was found to have breached regulation 18 of the General Regulation for students), which may fall into the scope of your request. The only way of identifying, extracting and recording the exact information you seek would be to interrogate each case file manually.
We have calculated it would take a total of 10 minutes per each ‘confirmed’ student academic misconduct case file to extract the requested information you seek for question 3.2. We have calculated it would take an estimated 245.5 hours, to locate and manually interrogate each individual academic misconduct case file.
Under section 16 of the Act, and to assist you in formulating a request to which we can respond, we can provide response to question 1, 2, 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 in full.
Please note we have not considered whether any exemptions may apply to such a request.
We should also point out that any revised request you submit will be treated as a new FOI request, and the 20 working-day time-limit will begin again.
We are sorry we cannot provide the data you requested, but trust this response explains our position.