Accessibility statement

Appendix 10: Policy on Transparency of Authorship in PGR Programmes, including generative AI, proofreading and translation

This policy should be read alongside The Policy on Research Degrees, section 12 and Appendix 3.

  1. Key Principles 
  2. Scope of this policy
  3. Assistance from the supervisory team and other staff members
  4. Assistance from third parties
  5. Institutional advice and assistance
  6. Peer support
  7. Permissible proofreading and editing assistance
  8. Unacceptable assistance
  9. Acknowledgement of proofreading or editing assistance
  10. Acknowledgement of collaborative writing in a journal-style thesis
  11. Using a proofreader

1. Key Principles

1.1

PGRs are responsible for the authorship and standard of work they submit as part of their PGR programmes.

1.2

Work submitted by a PGR as part of their PGR programme must be their own, unless it is work that has been undertaken collaboratively and this is declared in accordance with University expectations. 

1.3

Text submitted by a PGR as their own work, as part of their PGR programme, must be produced in English without translation (unless this is subject to an agreed exception eg if the PGR is undertaking a translation-based programme). Note that the main text of the thesis (or equivalent) must be in English unless an exception is granted, pre-submission, by SCA on the request of the relevant departmental Graduate School Board.

1.4

PGRs are expected to be transparent about the sources of information used via referencing, and any assistance (human and/or technological) that they have received in producing work submitted as part of their PGR programme in the form of acknowledgements. 

1.5

There are clearly defined limits to the extent of the assistance (human and/or technological) that may be provided by a third party to a PGR in the production of work submitted as part of their PGR programme. 

1.6

PGRs who do not adhere to these principles may be in danger of committing academic or research misconduct as set out in the PGR Academic Misconduct Policy. 

2. Scope of this policy

2.1

This policy applies to work submitted by a PGR eg reports, chapter drafts, presentations, papers, the thesis etc, rather than the underlying research (which will be covered by a separate policy). 

2.2

This policy applies to work submitted by a PGR in any formal assessment in their programme, including, but not limited to, formal reviews of progress, the thesis and the oral examination (but excluding credit-bearing taught modules - see below).

2.3

It is vital that supervisors are able to gain a realistic assessment of a PGR’s skill set in order to support them throughout their programme (eg where necessary to recommend English language or academic writing support) and ensure that they are suitably prepared to produce a thesis that meets the required standard. For this reason, this policy also applies to work for PGR programmes that is mandated or expected and submitted for scrutiny but not formally assessed (for example, work (including PDPs) submitted to supervisory and TAP meetings, work submitted as part of non-credit-bearing courses and training events (eg critiques of other PGRs’ work), and posters or papers for seminars or conferences).

2.4

When a PGR is undertaking a credit-bearing taught module that forms part of their PGR programme, any work submitted for those modules will fall under the Policy on Acceptable Assistance with Assessments (including Generative AI, Proofreading and Translation).

2.5

In certain disciplines (eg linguistics, modern languages, ancient languages), the accurate use of language may form part of the expectations for the final assessment, and/or during the programme it may be necessary to ascertain a PGR’s language abilities in order to assess their development needs or fulfil an element of a non-credit-bearing course or training event. In this case, a department may specify (subject to PPPC approval) further restrictions on permitted support, for example that in a particular piece of work no proofreading or editing assistance is permitted. 

3. Assistance from the supervisory team and other staff members

3.1

It expected that the supervisory team and other staff members connected to a particular PGR and their project (eg TAP members, the Graduate Chair) will read and comment on a PGR’s work, including drafts of the thesis.

3.2

Supervisors and other staff members should ensure that they are aware of the boundaries set out below in terms of acceptable and unacceptable assistance. The emphasis should be on making qualitative judgements about a PGR’s work and identifying issues (for example in relation to structure and style) for the PGR to consider and address. Supervisors should refrain from routine proofreading, editing or translation of PGR work, other than as required to demonstrate to a PGR where they need to direct their attention in future.  

3.3

Where supervisors and other staff members are concerned about the standard of work submitted by a PGR they should point the individual to sources of support, such as the Writing Centre. 

3.4

PGRs should acknowledge the role played by their supervisors or other staff members in their thesis (see below).

4. Assistance from third parties

4.1

Some PGRs may want to seek assistance from a third party to help them improve work submitted as part of their PGR programme. This may be because a PGR feels that additional scrutiny will help pick up issues they have missed, or because they feel that they would benefit from some additional support, for example because they have limited experience of academic writing, or are a non-native speaker of English, or have specific learning difficulties.

4.2

The University recognises this need and this policy does not aim to prohibit a PGR from receiving third party assistance with work submitted as part of their PGR programme. Rather, the aim is to ensure that there are clearly defined limits to, and transparency about, the assistance received. These safeguards are necessary to ensure that the standard of the awards is maintained, and all PGRs are treated fairly. 

4.3

Third party assistance may take the form of:

4.3.1 Institutional advice and assistance: Support from an institutional service such as the Writing Centre (see below);

4.3.2 Informal assistance: Support from peers (see below), friends or family: checking a PGR’s work, providing an audience’s reaction, commenting on drafts, proofreading etc. in order to improve the work;

4.3.3 Language-enhancement applications: Applications such as Grammarly, Pro Writing Aid and integrated spelling and grammar checkers can highlight issues and offer suggestions for improvements in various areas of writing, eg with grammatical errors, alternative vocabulary and sentence rephrasing;

4.3.4 Generative AI: Artificial intelligence tools (eg ChatGPT) which can understand and respond to human natural language and multimedia input and can provide a wide range of services;  

4.3.5 Translation tools or services: The process of translating text from one language to another: this could be human translation and/or using machine translation tools (eg Google translate);

4.3.6 Professional proofreader: An external, paid person or company employed by the PGR to proofread their work prior to submission.

5. Institutional advice and assistance

5.1

PGRs may seek assistance from institutional services such as the Maths Skills Centre, Writing Centre, and Academic Liaison Librarians. 

5.2

PGRs with a formal diagnosis of relevant disabilities may be entitled to more extensive assistance and should consult Disability Services about this. 

5.3

Use of these institutional services does not require acknowledgement but they are subject to the constraints of this policy unless an exception is agreed in a Student Support Plan and signed off by SCA.

6. Peer Support

6.1

Peer support under this policy refers to unpaid assistance provided to a PGR by a fellow PGR, for example commenting on a draft or proofreading. Peer support can be of immense value to both parties, providing a new perspective for the PGR whose work is being reviewed and a source of learning for the PGR undertaking the review. 

6.2

Peer support should be acknowledged (see below) and PGRs should be aware that if they provide assistance to another PGR beyond that permitted under this policy, they themselves may be committing academic misconduct.

7. Permissible proofreading and editing assistance

7.1 

Proofreading is defined by the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading as: a process of identifying typographical, linguistic, coding or positional errors and omissions on a printed or electronic proof, and marking corrections.

7.2

It is permissible for a PGR, with the appropriate acknowledgement (see below), to use a third party to identify and correct errors related to: 

7.2.1 Word usage (excluding specific terminology);

7.2.2 Spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, italics, abbreviations, headings, quotations, metrification, numbering, citations, referencing, tables, illustrations, footnotes and appendices (typographical errors).

7.3

In addition, it is permissible for a PGR, with the appropriate acknowledgement (see below) to use a third party to identify (but not correct) issues relating to :

7.3.1 Grammar and syntax;

7.3.2 Clarity of expression;

7.3.3 Voice and tone;

7.3.4 Issues with logical sequencing and linkage between sentences and paragraphs;

7.3.5 Ambiguity;

7.3.6 Repetition.

7.4

Where identification but not correction by a third party (human or software) is appropriate, PGRs should correct these issues themselves following feedback. In the case of language enhancement tools, the software usually provides feedback in the form of suggested edits for the author to choose - the selection of these options is permissible and subject to the judgement of the PGR. 

8. Unacceptable assistance

8.1

It is not appropriate for a PGR to seek or accept, or a third party to offer, editing and proofreading assistance for work submitted as part of their PGR programme that alters the academic content, including: 

8.1.1 Using generative AI tools in a way which could be considered false authorship or which raises concerns about the security of research data; 

8.1.2 Using translation tools or services to translate text in whole or significant sections (oral or written), which is then submitted as the PGR’s own work;

8.1.3 Generating or re-writing (including shortening or summarising) any of the PGR’s sentences or sections of work;

8.1.4 Rearranging or paraphrasing passages of text, sequences of code or sections of other material for the PGR;

8.1.5 Reformatting the material for the PGR;

8.1.6 Generating or contributing additional material to the original;

8.1.7 Generating or checking calculations or formulae;

8.1.8 Generating or rewriting formulae, equations or computer code;

8.1.9 Generating, labelling or relabelling figures or diagrams.

9. Acknowledgement of proofreading or editing assistance

9.1

If a PGR uses the spelling and grammar checking tools which are integrated into MS Word or Google Docs (or equivalent) as standard, then no acknowledgment is required.

9.2

If a PGR receives third party assistance with proofreading or editing, whether paid or not, this must be declared when the work is submitted. 

9.3

Work submitted for TAP meetings, formal reviews of progress and the final examination, must include a formal acknowledgement of proofreading or editing, either at the beginning of the document or (if applicable) after the reference list.

9.3.1 The formal acknowledgement should explain the type of assistance provided to the PGR, who or what provided that assistance (but not naming individuals), and a statement that the assistance has been in accordance with this policy.

9.3.2 A suitable format for a formal acknowledgement is as follows: 

I acknowledge that I received assistance from (eg professional proofreader/family member/friend/ChatGPT/Grammarly) to proofread this TAP report/progression report/thesis in line with the Policy on Transparency in Authorship in PGR Programmes.

9.4 

Other work submitted by PGRs as part of their PhD programmes must include a suitable acknowledgement appropriate to the nature of the task (for example, if submitting a document to a supervisor any assistance could be noted verbally). 

10. Acknowledgement of collaborative writing in a journal-style thesis

10.1 

If a PGR is submitting a journal-style thesis they may include papers (or the disciplinary equivalent) that have been co-authored. In this case, the PGR should follow the guidance on authorship in a journal-style thesis. 

11. Using a proofreader

11.1

Advice of the supervisor(s): A PGR should seek advice from their supervisor(s) before using a proofreader. The supervisor may be able to provide reassurance that a proofreader is not required and/or suggest other forms of support (eg the Writing Centre).

11.2

University guidelines and department requirements: The PGR must provide the proofreader with a copy of this policy and ensure that the proofreader accepts the conditions included in them in writing. The PGR should also provide the proofreader with their department’s specific reference formats and other appropriate writing guidelines.

11.3

Contract and payment for professional proofreaders: The PGR bears the sole responsibility for the recruitment and cost of services rendered by a professional proofreader, therefore PGRs are advised to check the proofreader’s credentials, agree on a payment rate, overall cost and timescale before the procedure begins. The contract is a private matter between the PGR and the proofreader.

11.4

Proving the extent of the proofreading: In order to be able to prove the extent/limits of the proofreading, the PGR must keep a copy of the edited/corrected work, showing the changes that have been made. This copy may then be produced should any challenge arise concerning the degree of guidance given. This copy must be kept until the PGR’s degree has been conferred in case the PGR is accused of academic misconduct. 

11.5

PGR responsibility: Responsibility for submitted work lies completely with the PGR. Inaccurate or inappropriate proofreading will not constitute grounds for an appeal, complaint, or mitigating circumstances (in the case of an accusation of academic misconduct). It is up to the PGR to accept, ignore or challenge the advice and corrections suggested by a proofreader. PGRs will not be granted extensions due to a need, real or perceived, to employ a proofreader or any delays in proofreading. 

Policy sections

1. Introduction

2. The criteria for the award of PGR degrees

3. The research environment

4. Selection, admission and induction of PGRs

5. Supervision

6. Responsibilities of PGRs and supervisors

7. Periods of enrolment, changes to PGRs' status and personal circumstances (including illness), working hours and holidays

8. Progress and review arrangements

9. Development of research and other skills

10. Evaluation of PGR programmes

11. Responsible research and academic integrity

12. Assessment

13. Dissemination of research results, intellectual property rights and responsibilities

14. PGR complaints and appeals

15. Research away from York (excluding PGRs on distance learning PGR programmes)

16. Arrangements for non-York PGRs

Appendices