Can you use ChatGPT while writing your thesis, and if you do, must you say so? In 2023 the typical answer was a flat “no”. By 2026 university AI policies are more detailed and more demanding: no university we checked bans generative AI outright, none allows undisclosed use in an assessed thesis, and most push the detailed decision down to the faculty, the programme or the individual examiner.
This article is part of our guide How to Write a Master’s Thesis by the Mastermind PhD team and relates to our Paraphrasing & Plagiarism Check service. Sources last checked: November 2026.
That makes “is it allowed?” the wrong question. The right ones are: which use, under which conditions, declared how, according to which document? This guide answers them from university AI policies in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands (accessed October 2026), in three tables, and then sets out what to agree with your supervisor before you start.
What is a university generative AI policy? A statement, usually adopted by a senate, faculty board or examination board, that defines which uses of text-, image- or code-generating tools are permitted in assessed work, which must be disclosed and how, and which count as academic misconduct. For a thesis it operates through two documents: the declaration of originality (in Germany the Eigenständigkeitserklärung) that you sign on submission, and the misconduct regulations that apply if the declaration proves false.
Why do university AI policies differ?
Because responsibility is layered. The UK’s Russell Group principles (July 2023), agreed by all 24 member universities, commit them to upholding academic integrity and to telling students where AI use is inappropriate, but also state that appropriate uses “are likely to differ between academic disciplines” and encourage departments to apply institution-wide policies within their own context. German faculties write their own guidelines on top of examination regulations, and Dutch universities leave the decision to the lecturer or examiner for each assignment. For a thesis, three documents can therefore apply at once: the university statement, the faculty guideline and the supervisor’s instructions, with the most specific one prevailing.
United Kingdom
| Institution and document | Permitted uses | Declaration | Prohibited |
|---|---|---|---|
| University of Cambridge, Education Quality and Policy Office, Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Appropriate use to support personal study, research and formative work, ideally discussed with the supervisor | Any AI-generated content in a summative assessment must be acknowledged | “A student using any unacknowledged content generated by artificial intelligence within a summative assessment as though it is their own work constitutes academic misconduct, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the assessment brief” |
| Cambridge Department of Engineering, Use of Generative AI Policy (Faculty Board, June 2026) | Suggestions the student can evaluate, background research, explanations of concepts, reference managers for sources the student found | Students must declare all usage of generative AI in summative work unless the brief says otherwise | Generating raw text or content for submission without a self-written base; auto-generating references; anything an assessment brief prohibits; hallucinated citations count as misconduct even if unintentional |
| University of Birmingham, Doctoral School, Guidance on the use of GenAI for thesis writing by PGRs | Study aid for personal learning; “third-party editorial assistant” for spelling, punctuation, grammar, shortening sentences without changing meaning and formatting consistency; illustrative images declared in the caption | Statement in the acknowledgements naming the tool, its editorial remit and confirming the remit was not exceeded; records of interactions, which may be discussed in the viva | Writing the thesis or developing arguments, correcting factual content, translating large amounts of text, cutting to a word count, rewriting code |
| King’s College London, Generative AI: student guidance | Four levels set by programme or module leaders, from minimal (spell and grammar checks) upwards | Follow programme-level requirements; the guidance sits beneath the Academic Misconduct Policy | Submitted work that is not “a genuine demonstration of your own work”; copying and pasting generative output into a summative assessment |
| University of Oxford, Plagiarism guidance | AI only where specific prior authorisation has been given, or as an agreed reasonable adjustment | Acknowledge all assistance that contributed to the work | Material “generated wholly or in part through use of artificial intelligence” without authorisation falls within the definition of plagiarism |
The Birmingham document matters most for master’s and doctoral students because it is written for theses, and its editorial exception mirrors the UK proofreading policies: language yes, content no, always declared.
📱 Check your similarity with a Turnitin report — Every file comes with a Turnitin report and an AI check; similar passages are reworked without changing the meaning.
Germany
German university AI policies attach to the Eigenständigkeitserklärung, the signed declaration that the thesis is your own work and that all aids were listed.
| Institution and document | Permitted uses | Declaration | Prohibited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty 13, Eigenständigkeitserklärung und Einsatz von KI-Hilfsmitteln (bachelor’s and master’s theses) | Research support if verified; language support that does not change the scientific content (style, grammar, spelling, translation, formatting, LaTeX help), which is merely listed | Generative AI used for central scientific steps (topic entry, hypothesis development, method selection, producing or evaluating results) must be documented in a table in the appendix with the programme name and purpose | Tools the examiner has excluded; AI-written chapters or essential argumentative steps; unverified adoption of AI results; AI for parts assessed as individual performance such as interpretation and discussion; violations can fail the thesis |
| University of Münster, Institute of Psychology, Eigenständigkeitserklärung and guidance (valid from February 2025) | Use of generative AI is “expressly permitted and in many cases helpful”, provided every tool is named and all output is checked | All tools listed in a table, a list of aids or in-text citations, in the format set by the first examiner; the student confirms that every part was checked and is their own scientific achievement | Adopting AI output unchecked; the student bears full responsibility for the entire content |
| University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Guideline for the use of generative AI in dissertations (Faculty Council, 22 April 2024) | Permitted if it complies with good scientific practice; linguistic proofreading, code help and data-analysis support “will generally have no influence on the scientific performance” | Mandatory declaration form listing the systems and, per area of contribution, how they were used; a declaration is required even when no AI was used; basic spelling, grammar and translation tools are exempt | Non-disclosure is deception and leads to an insufficient grade; fully automated creation of the thesis affects the assessment of independent performance |
| Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Statement of the Executive Committee on generative models (September 2023) | Use in research is not ruled out; permitted in funding proposals | Researchers should disclose whether they used generative models, which ones, for what purpose and to what extent | Only natural persons may be authors; use must not infringe intellectual property or amount to plagiarism (the section on reviews was superseded in 2025 and 2026) |
The DFG statement is not among university AI policies, but faculties cite it as the benchmark of good scientific practice; Hohenheim’s guideline points candidates to it explicitly.
Netherlands
Dutch university AI policies sit in the Education and Examination Regulations and faculty guidelines, and the lecturer or examiner decides for each assignment.
| Institution and document | Permitted uses | Declaration | Prohibited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leiden University, Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, GenAI Student Guidelines (August 2026) | Five levels set by the teacher per assignment: no AI; AI-assisted idea generation and structuring; AI-assisted editing (the original work without AI is attached in an appendix); AI task completion with human evaluation; full AI as a co-pilot. Where instructions are unclear, “No AI” is the default | A statement declaring how AI was used, APA citation of AI-generated content where required, and a record of prompts the teacher may request | “Any use of GenAI without an appropriate disclosure (as specified by the course instructor) is considered fraud”; literal copying of AI output without full citation is fraud |
| Leiden University, Faculty of Humanities, Guidelines for the use of GenAI in assessment (8 September 2025) | Only where the lecturer decides otherwise | As specified by the lecturer | “GenAI use for gradable texts/assignments is not permitted unless the lecturer decides otherwise” |
| University of Amsterdam, Policy framework and guidelines on GenAI in education, with an addendum to the Assessment Policy Framework | General and specific guidelines, with room for faculties and programmes to translate them into their own practice; critical and responsible GenAI use is encouraged as a learning objective | Set at programme level | “The basic principle is and remains that students must achieve demonstrable learning objectives independently” |
Dutch thesis supervisors therefore have real discretion. A written agreement at the thesis start, recorded in the plan or by email, beats general university AI policies.
What do university AI policies have in common?
- Disclosure is the hinge. Cambridge, Birmingham, Marburg, Münster, Hohenheim, Leiden and the DFG all turn on whether use was declared; undisclosed use is misconduct or fraud even where the same use would have been acceptable if declared.
- Responsibility never transfers. All university AI policies make the student answerable for every claim, reference and number, including fabricated citations.
- Language help is treated differently from content help. Marburg, Hohenheim and Birmingham allow style, grammar and formatting assistance with light or no documentation, while argument, interpretation and discussion remain off limits.
- Records matter. Marburg and Hohenheim want tables of tools and purposes; Leiden wants prompt logs; Birmingham warns that the viva may include questions on how AI was used.
- The tool is never an author. The DFG limits authorship to natural persons, and a declaration that no AI was used may itself be required (Hohenheim; Leiden level 1).
What should you agree with your supervisor before you start?
- Which document governs my thesis: university, faculty, programme or supervisor instructions?
- Which uses are permitted for this thesis: brainstorming, structure, language polishing, code, translation of sources, summarising literature?
- Where and how do I declare: acknowledgements, methods, appendix table, declaration form, figure caption?
- Must I keep prompt records or screenshots, and for how long?
- Will the thesis be checked with Turnitin’s AI indicator, and how does the examination board treat the result?
- May I upload participant data or unpublished text to a tool? Leiden and Birmingham both warn against it.
- Do the rules change if a paper from the thesis goes to a journal?
Write the answers into your thesis plan and have the supervisor confirm them by email.
How do you document AI use properly?
Follow the most demanding format among the university AI policies that apply. The Marburg and Hohenheim models are a sound default even where your university asks for less: a table in the appendix with one row per tool, giving the tool and version, the purpose (for example “suggestions for alternative wording in sections 2.2 and 2.3” or “debugging of the R script for the regression model”), the chapters affected, and how you verified the output.
Add one sentence in the acknowledgements or methods that summarises the table and confirms that all content was checked and is your own, and, where required, the explicit statement that no generative AI was used to generate text. Keep the prompt history in a dated file in case the examiners ask.
University AI policies change: three things to check
The university AI policies cited here are dated between July 2023 and September 2026, and several replaced earlier versions within two years. Before relying on any rule, check the page date, any newer faculty guidance and the current declaration form. Where this guide and your handbook disagree, the handbook wins; where the handbook and your supervisor’s written instructions disagree, ask the examination board.
📱 Ask on WhatsApp now — 5 years of experience across all disciplines and 14 academic services. Two-stage payment (80/20); revisions are free until supervisor approval, within 30% of the chapter.
Frequently asked questions
Is ChatGPT banned in UK theses?
No university AI policies we checked ban it. Cambridge permits appropriate use for study and research and treats unacknowledged AI content in summative work as misconduct; Birmingham allows generative AI as an editorial assistant for language and formatting if declared, but not for writing or developing arguments; Oxford requires specific prior authorisation for any use in assessed work.
Do German universities require a declaration about AI?
Increasingly, yes. Marburg, Münster and Hohenheim all attach AI rules to the declaration of independent work, require tools to be listed or tabulated, and treat undisclosed use as a breach that can fail the thesis or lead to an insufficient grade. Check the current form issued by your examination office.
Can I use AI to improve my English in a thesis?
Often, with conditions. Marburg allows language support that does not change the scientific content and asks only that the tool be listed; Birmingham allows grammar, spelling and sentence-shortening help declared in the acknowledgements; Leiden’s “AI-assisted editing” level requires the original text as an appendix. Where writing itself is the learning outcome, lecturers may prohibit it.
What happens if I use AI without declaring it?
At Leiden’s Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs it is fraud by definition; at Cambridge it is academic misconduct; at Hohenheim it is deception leading to an insufficient grade; at Marburg it breaches the declaration and can fail the thesis. The sanction attaches to the concealment, not to the tool.
Can an AI tool be a co-author of a paper from my thesis?
No. The DFG states that only natural persons may be authors, and the Committee on Publication Ethics states that AI tools cannot meet authorship requirements because they cannot take responsibility for the work; their use must instead be disclosed in the methods or a similar section.
Sources
- Russell Group. Russell Group principles on the use of generative AI tools in education (July 2023). https://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/6137/rg_ai_principles-final.pdf (accessed October 2026)
- University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering. Use of Generative AI Policy (approved by Faculty Board, June 2026). https://teaching26-27.eng.cam.ac.uk/content/use-generative-ai-policy (accessed October 2026)
- University of Birmingham, University Doctoral School. Guidance on the use of GenAI for thesis writing by postgraduate research students. https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/student/libraries/research/thesis/genai-thesis-pgrs.aspx (accessed October 2026)
- Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich 13. Eigenständigkeitserklärung und Einsatz von KI-Hilfsmitteln bei Bachelor- und Masterarbeiten. https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb13/studium/pruefungsbuero/weitere-informationen/media/eigenstaendigkeitserklaerung-und-einsatz-von-ki.pdf (accessed October 2026)
- University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences. Guideline for the use of generative AI in the preparation of dissertations and habilitation theses (22 April 2024). https://uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/uni_hohenheim/Forschung/Promotion/Promotionsordnungen_und_Formulare/Fakultaet_W/W_Guideline_for_the_use_of_generative_AI_in_the_preparation_of_dissertations_and_habilitation_theses.pdf (accessed October 2026)
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Statement by the Executive Committee on the Influence of Generative Models of Text and Image Creation on Science and the Humanities and on the DFG’s Funding Activities (September 2023). https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/geschaeftsstelle/publikationen/stellungnahmen_papiere/2023/230921_statement_executive_committee_ki_ai.pdf (accessed October 2026)
- Leiden University, Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs. GenAI Student Guidelines (August 2026). https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/governance-and-global-affairs/docentenplatform/fgga-student-guidelines-ai-use.pdf (accessed October 2026)
Sources last checked: November 2026. This article is general educational guidance and does not replace your university regulations or your supervisor’s instructions. How we prepare our content.