Stanford 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: Instructors may set course-specific AI rules. Without a clear course statement, AI is treated like another person's assistance; substantial completion of assignments or exams is not permitted, and non-incidental use should be acknowledged.
Key facts, with sources
| Topic | What the school publishes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| School | Private nonprofit, four-year institution in Stanford, CA | Source |
| Official policy | Academic integrity policy | Source |
| Honor code | The Honor Code | Source |
| Plagiarism definition | Stanford's published definition covers another person's original work, including code and ideas, used without appropriate acknowledgment; verbatim text also needs quotation marks. | Source |
| Generative AI | Instructor decides. Instructors may set course-specific AI rules. Without a clear course statement, AI is treated like another person's assistance; substantial completion of assignments or exams is not permitted, and non-incidental use should be acknowledged. Instructor syllabus statements. | Source |
| Sanctions | The policy publishes the options or review limits listed below; no automatic progression is inferred. | Source |
| Writing center | Hume Center for Writing and Speaking | Source |
| Appeals | A responding student found responsible can appeal a Hearing Panel decision under the 2023 Charter on its specified grounds. An extension may be requested within the filing period. Deadline stated: within 20 business days following notice of the Hearing Panel outcome, excluding winter and spring breaks under the Charter definition of days. | Source |
| Reporting office | Office of Community Standards | Source |
| Detection tools named by the school | MOSS. Named in the school's own words, we do not infer tools. Department of Computer Science software plagiarism only; not a claim of campus-wide use or of Turnitin adoption. | Source |
| Institution identity | Stanford University | Registry |
| Summary scope | Independent AI-assisted summary of published sources, not affiliated with Stanford; 2023 Charter provisions are not represented as governing every historical case. | Policy |
In the school's own words
“another person's original work”
Plagiarism definition: source, checked October 23, 2026.
“Individual course instructors are free to set their own policies”
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.
- Alternative Resolution. The 2023 Charter excludes probation and suspension from this review level.
- Mid-Level Review. The Charter limits probation or suspension through this level to at most one quarter.
- High-Level Review. Expulsion is available only through this review level; these are process limits, not an automatic sequence.
What students at Stanford University should know
Stanford's published guidance names MOSS for software plagiarism in its Department of Computer Science; that is not evidence of campus-wide Turnitin use. For generative AI in coursework, the Board on Conduct Affairs says instructors can set their own rules and gives a default when a course has not supplied a clear statement: AI assistance is treated like help from another person, and using it to substantially complete an assignment or exam is not permitted. Acknowledging non-incidental AI assistance does not make an otherwise prohibited use acceptable. Before submitting a coding assignment, separate two questions: which collaboration or AI help the instructor permits, and which borrowed code, ideas or text require credit. For an essay, a bibliography alone does not identify copied wording; the plagiarism guidance also requires quotation marks around verbatim text. If you face an allegation, ask the Office of Community Standards which process governs your case. The 2023 Charter has different review levels and sanction limits; historical examples on the definitions page are not an automatic penalty forecast. Its Hearing Panel appeal route has a 20-business-day filing period after outcome notice, excluding winter and spring breaks under the Charter's definition, with an extension request possible within that period. This is an independent summary of the cited Stanford publications as read on October 23, 2026, not a university decision or a legal assessment.
Frequently asked questions
The Stanford guidance read on October 23, 2026 names MOSS for detecting software plagiarism in the Department of Computer Science. These sources do not establish whether Turnitin is used elsewhere; ask your course staff about their process rather than treating one departmental tool as a university-wide inventory.
The BCA guidance lets instructors set course rules. Without a clear instructor statement, it treats AI like another person's help and does not permit using it to substantially complete an assignment or exam. It also asks students to acknowledge non-incidental AI assistance; disclosure is not permission.
No automatic penalty is stated here. The 2023 Charter sets different sanction limits for Alternative Resolution, Mid-Level Review and High-Level Review. Do not treat examples attached to historical guidance as the guaranteed outcome of a new case. OCS can explain the process that applies to you.
Every row links to its source. Independent summary, not affiliated with Stanford University. Found a mistake? Report a correction.
Next step for most readers: how universities write their AI rules.
For background, read our article on AI writing in academic papers.
Try it on your own work
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 plagiarism check