Ohio State University Plagiarism and AI Policy
Last verified October 23, 2026 · AI-assisted research and drafting · Maintained by Plagiarism Checker Online, operated by Markus Nick
The short answer: According to the published guidance checked October 23, 2026: The student guidance says generative AI must not be used to complete course assignments unless the individual instructor gives explicit, clear permission, and then only in the permitted ways.
Key facts, with sources
| Topic | What the school publishes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| School | Public, four-year institution in Columbus, OH | Source |
| Official policy | Academic integrity policy | Source |
| Plagiarism definition | Plagiarism includes presenting another's work or ideas as your own, including unacknowledged copying or paraphrasing. | Source |
| Generative AI | Restricted by default. The student guidance says generative AI must not be used to complete course assignments unless the individual instructor gives explicit, clear permission, and then only in the permitted ways. | Source |
| Sanctions | The policy publishes the options or review limits listed below; no automatic progression is inferred. | Source |
| Writing center | Ohio State Writing Center | Source |
| Appeals | The rule limits appeals to specified grounds and sends COAM or coordinator decisions to the executive vice president and provost or designee. Acceptance of responsibility restricts the appeal basis to a grossly disproportionate disciplinary sanction. Deadline stated: within five business days after the date decision notice is sent; extensions are discretionary. | Source |
| Reporting office | Committee on Academic Misconduct (COAM) | Source |
| Institution identity | Ohio State University-Main Campus | Registry |
| Summary scope | Independent AI-assisted summary of the cited Ohio State publications as read October 23, 2026; not a case decision, affiliation or legal assessment. | Policy |
In the school's own words
“unacknowledged word-for-word use and/or paraphrasing”
Plagiarism definition: source, checked October 23, 2026.
“only with the explicit and clear permission of each individual instructor”
Generative AI policy: source, checked October 23, 2026.
Published outcomes and review levels
These are the published options or review limits below, not a predicted outcome or an automatic sequence. Follow the linked policy for the applicable process.
- Reprimand or disciplinary probation. Listed disciplinary options; selection depends on the violation and relevant circumstances, not an automatic first step.
- Suspension or dismissal. Listed disciplinary options include temporary termination of enrollment or permanent separation.
- Academic grade consequences. For academic misconduct, the hearing body may authorize a lowered or failing course grade and loss of coursework credit. Other sanctions may be combined.
What students at Ohio State University should know
Ohio State's published Code of Student Conduct treats unacknowledged copying and paraphrasing as plagiarism, and its student guidance restricts generative AI on course assignments unless the instructor explicitly authorizes the particular use. A useful starting point is to save the assignment instructions and separate a source-attribution problem from an unauthorized-assistance problem: adding a citation does not itself supply permission to use an AI tool. For example, if your instructor allows AI brainstorming but not generated paragraphs, an acknowledgment cannot expand that permission. That is an illustrative application of the stated boundary, not a finding about a real student. For an allegation, COAM is the relevant committee, rather than a private detector provider. Its page says instructors must report suspected academic misconduct and a panel determines whether a violation occurred. Possible sanctions depend on the circumstances; the published rule lists disciplinary outcomes as well as lowered grades, rather than a guaranteed first-offense result. The appeal rule uses five business days from the date decision notice is sent, identifies limited appeal grounds, and names the provost or designee for COAM decisions. If you accepted responsibility, the rule narrows the available basis of appeal. The Writing Center is a separate source of writing help and does not decide your conduct case.
Frequently asked questions
The published sanctions rule does not promise a fixed first-offense penalty. It lists reprimand, probation, suspension and dismissal, allows grade consequences for academic misconduct, and says circumstances and aggravating or mitigating factors matter. These are available outcomes, not an automatic sequence.
A citation is not the same as permission. Ohio State's student guidance says an individual instructor must explicitly authorize AI use for course assignments, and students may use it only in the ways allowed. Check the specific assignment before relying on an acknowledgment.
Rule 3335-23-18 describes a limited, documented appeal to the provost or designee, normally within five business days after decision notice is sent. Extensions are discretionary. Students who accepted responsibility have a narrower appeal basis; use the official rule and the instructions in your decision notice.
Every row links to its source. Independent summary, not affiliated with Ohio State University. Found a mistake? Report a correction.
Students often ask about this too, so we wrote how universities write their AI rules.
For background, read what to do if you are accused of using AI.
Run your draft through a check
A report can support your own review; it does not establish permission or decide academic misconduct. From $0.29 per page, minimum order $0.90.
Start AI check