While SFU does not at this time (December 2024) have institution-wide guidelines around the use of AI in graduate theses, we know that this is a topic of considerable interest. As such, in consultation with the SFU Associate Dean, Policy + Curriculum in Graduate Studies,  we have compiled some considerations on the process for disclosing the use of AI tools in thesis research and writing. Please note that this is an area that is changing rapidly so the information contained here may be swiftly out of date! 

1. Talk to your supervisor 

At SFU, whether or not you have permission to use genAI tools (like ChatGPT) for your thesis is currently at the discretion of your thesis supervisor. There may also be SFU department or faculty guidelines to be aware of, but your supervisor is the first person to check in with so that you can be sure you have shared expectations. It’s best to do this early in your thesis research, as at every stage of the research process there are different tools that you might consult (e.g., everything from Google’s AI Overview in search to Grammarly for editing). Have an honest and open conversation about the AI tools that you are interested in using, how you plan to use them, and what is appropriate for your research project. 

In the event that your supervisor does not have firm guidelines or expectations for you, and in the absence of specific SFU, department, or faculty protocols for transparency in AI use, the policies of academic journals present developing disciplinary norms. We recommend reviewing them and then returning to your supervisor with a proposed course of action. Always make sure your supervisor has approved your planned research process before moving ahead. Get your supervisor’s permission in writing (you can do this by sending an email after you meet with them, confirming your conversation) and save it for your records. 

2. Determine disciplinary and publisher norms

As a general rule, the use and nature of use of generative AI should be disclosed in your thesis and in other publications as well. Tools used for literature discovery and writing assistance should usually be included in the acknowledgements section of your publications, while tools used for data collection and analysis should probably be described in the methods section. In some disciplines, there is a practice of placing this info in the appendices of a thesis. It’s a good idea to refer to a style guide in your discipline to see what is required. For those using MLA, APA, or Chicago/Turabian, see the Library’s guides on  citation styles and genAI. 

Alternatively, you may wish to identify a particular academic journal in your discipline, and follow their guidelines for disclosure of AI in manuscripts. Many journals will require that the use of AI tools will be included in the acknowledgements section; other journals may require that the output from the AI tool be included as an appendix. We have included a list of example publisher policies, below. 

3. Keep track of the tools you use 

Regardless of how you disclose your use of AI tools for your thesis research and writing, you may need to be able to produce a list of which ones you used and how you used them. Just like with documenting your research process, keep track of which AI tools you used and how you applied them to your research so that the reporting and writing process is smooth. At this point, there is no reliable way to detect whether or not something was created using a GenAI tool, so don’t assume you will be able to use software to retrace your steps if you forget to document your process. 

4. Stay up to date 

As we’ve been saying all along in this blog post, this is a rapidly changing area. It is likely new developments in AI will continue to take place throughout your thesis research and writing process. Make sure that you’re in regular contact with your supervisor about use of AI in your thesis, and that you are keeping up with changing SFU university, faculty, and department guidelines for disclosing AI in theses so that you’re not surprised by any new requirements at submission time. 

Questions? 

Students and supervisors can send questions about AI and theses to SFU Associate Dean, Policy + Curriculum in Graduate Studies at adpolicy@sfu.ca. Questions about publisher policies can be directed to digital-scholarship@sfu.ca.  

Publisher guidelines

Here are some examples of publisher requirements for disclosing use of generative AI. These are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Most publishers will have their own page containing their policy or guidance around AI that can be easily discovered with a Google search (e.g., “Springer AI policy”). Again, please be aware that this is a quickly changing space so the guidance may go out of date quickly. We confirmed the following publisher information on December 17, 2024. 

Sage - Assistive and Generative AI Guidelines for Authors

“We believe that AI-assisted writing will become more common as AI tools are increasingly embedded within tools such as Microsoft Word and Google Docs. You are not required to disclose the use of assistive AI tools in your submission, but all content, including AI-assisted content, must undergo rigorous human review prior to submission. This is to ensure the content aligns with our standards for quality and authenticity.

You are required to inform us of any AI-generated content appearing in your work (including text, images, or translations) when you submit any form of content to Sage or Corwin, including journal articles, manuscripts and book proposals. This will allow the editorial team to make an informed publishing decision regarding your submission.”

Taylor and Francis – AI Policy

“Authors must clearly acknowledge within the article or book any use of Generative AI tools through a statement which includes: the full name of the tool used (with version number), how it was used, and the reason for use. For article submissions, this statement must be included in the Methods or Acknowledgments section. Book authors must disclose their intent to employ Generative AI tools at the earliest possible stage to their editorial contacts for approval – either at the proposal phase if known, or if necessary, during the manuscript writing phase.  If approved, the book author must then include the statement in the preface or introduction of the book. This level of transparency ensures that editors can assess whether Generative AI tools have been used and whether they have been used responsibly.”  

Wiley - Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics

“If an author has used a GenAI tool to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described, transparently and in detail, in the Methods section (or via a disclosure or within the Acknowledgements section, as applicable). The author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tool and for correctly referencing any supporting work on which that information depends. GenAI tools must not be used to create, alter or manipulate original research data and results. Tools that are used to improve spelling, grammar, and general editing are not included in the scope of these guidelines. The final decision about whether use of a GenAI tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy.” 

Elsevier - Generative AI policies for journals

“Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology [...] We ask authors who have used AI or AI-assisted tools to insert a statement at the end of their manuscript, immediately above the references, entitled ‘Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process’. In that statement, we ask authors to specify the tool that was used and the reason for using the tool. We suggest that authors follow this format when preparing their statement:

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.” 

Springer - Artificial Intelligence (AI)

“Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria (imprint editorial policy link). Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM (or other AI-tool) for “AI assisted copy editing” purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, we define the term "AI assisted copy editing" as AI-assisted improvements to human-generated texts for readability and style, and to ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone. These AI-assisted improvements may include wording and formatting changes to the texts, but do not include generative editorial work and autonomous content creation. In all cases, there must be human accountability for the final version of the text and agreement from the authors that the edits reflect their original work.”