University of Arkansas.

Detection status: Turnitin AI Writing Detection available to all instructors, with the integrity office publishing its own thresholds and corroborating factors before a report is filed; Honorlock documented for fully online exams, with Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor recommended by the same office for other classes
Office in these sources: Academic Initiatives and Integrity · 470 N. Campus Walk, 3rd Floor of the CORD, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 · 479-575-5229 · honesty@uark.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Aug 27, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

The University of Arkansas's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. Two documents do most of the work here: the Academic Integrity Policy (current as of July 25, 2024) and the Sanction Rubric, both approved by the Faculty Senate, which together set the standard of proof, the route a case takes through a college Academic Integrity Monitor to the All-University Academic Integrity Board, and the sanction points attached to each level of violation. Separately, the university's teaching-support unit publishes a faculty guide, written by the Executive Director for Academic Initiatives and Integrity, that states thresholds for when a Turnitin AI Writing Detection report should prompt a report. Course syllabi may add rules of their own, and the policy says so. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case; confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

AI detection is in use, and the university publishes how it expects instructors to read it

The Academic Integrity Policy states the license plainly (policy states "Current as of July 25, 2024"; retrieved Aug 25, 2026): "Faculty at the University of Arkansas are provided access to Turnitin software, which can assist in identifying different types of academic dishonesty. Students may be required to submit their work to Turnitin as part of their enrollment in a course." Source: Academic Integrity Policy (PDF), §III.J.

The university also publishes what it expects an instructor to do with an AI Writing Detection report before filing anything. The guide is on Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support, dated Jul 24, 2024, and is attributed on its face to "Chris Bryson, Ph.D., Executive Director for Academic Initiatives and Integrity" (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

"Turnitin is now available to all UARK instructors. One component of this software will improve an instructor's ability to assess whether the written work submitted by a student contains text generated by artificial intelligence (AI)." "Like writing flagged by plagiarism software, a percentage of flagged text within an AI Writing Detection report should not automatically result in a report of academic misconduct. Rather, this alert should call for further review by the instructor." "The report UARK Instructors have access to highlights text likely to be generated by AI in blue, and text likely to be re-paraphrased by AI in purple. If such flag(s) are present within a report, concerned faculty should ensure that the work submitted includes a minimum of 300 words and the percentage flagged is over 20%. Under these conditions, Turnitin has claimed a false positive rate of less than 1%."

The same guide lists the corroborating factors it asks instructors to look for beyond the report — that the work "does not address the assignment's question," that it "uses concepts that were not addressed within the course content," that "previous work submitted by the student is much different than the work in question," or that there are "clear statements within the text that reference the use of a large language model" — and then states the referral rule: "If any of the issues above exist, along with flagged text within an AI Writing Detection report, it is well within the scope of an instructor's duty to report this issue to be further investigated by an AIM." Source: Turnitin: Assessing AI Writing Detection Reports — TIPS.

The integrity office's own faculty FAQ points back to that guide when asked the evidentiary question directly (retrieved Aug 25, 2026): asked "Turnitin's AI Writing Detection report flagged parts of student's paper and they were not permitted to use AI. Can I trust this information enough to submit a report?", the office answers "Turnitin's AI Writing Detection reports should serve as an alert to you to further evaluate the work in question." Source: Frequently Asked Questions — Academic Initiatives and Integrity. The same FAQ treats a Similarity report the same way: "The percentage match on a Similarity report should serve to alert you that you need to investigate further – it does not mean you should automatically report the matter."

On the narrower question of how an AI Writing Detection report is weighed once a case is before the All-University Academic Integrity Board, as distinct from how an instructor reads it before filing, nothing was located: searched the Academic Integrity Policy in full, the Sanction Rubric, the integrity office's faculty and student FAQs, its Turnitin for Students page, and the TIPS guide itself. The policy states the Board's standard of proof but names no detector.

Two proctoring tools, both described by the university as AI-driven

Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support documents Honorlock (page dated Apr 3, 2025; retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

"Honorlock is an online test proctoring service that allows exams to be taken online without the necessity of being on campus or at another test-taking location while still maintaining the security of the exam. When a student takes a test, the AI analyzes their webcam feed. If the AI never flags any suspicious behavior, the student proceeds through the test without interacting with a live proctor. However, if the AI detects suspicious behavior then a live proctor is assigned to chat with the student about any issues that have arisen." "IMPORTANT NOTE: Only classes that are 100% online can use Honorlock for testing. If you are teaching a class that isn't 100% online, then we recommend Respondus Lockdown Browser with Monitor."

Source: About Honorlock — TIPS. Scope, as the page states it: Honorlock is confined to fully online classes and to exam sessions. Provenance, kept distinct: Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor appears on that page only inside the sentence quoted above — "If you are teaching a class that isn't 100% online, then we recommend Respondus Lockdown Browser with Monitor." That is a recommendation on a university page, not a captured description of a deployment; the university's Blackboard help site separately publishes troubleshooting for the tool. Neither Honorlock nor Respondus is described as producing an AI-writing score on submitted text, and neither is presented here as one.

Detection sweep, so a later reader can tell a thorough negative from an unasked question. Searched on uark.edu: Turnitin (including its SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; the Blackboard Learn Ultra tool catalogue and Blackboard help site; the teaching-support unit's tool overviews; the integrity office's own faculty and student pages; and the graduate thesis and dissertation pipeline. Documented in institutional use on the university's own pages: Turnitin similarity, Turnitin AI Writing Detection, and Honorlock for fully online exams. Named on university pages without a deployment description captured here: Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor, recommended by the teaching-support unit for classes that are not fully online and supported on the Blackboard help site, and ProctorU, which appears on individual online graduate program pages rather than in any campus-wide service description; both are recorded at that provenance and not upgraded to a campus-wide deployment. No first-party page naming Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Proctorio or Examity in institutional use was located in this review, and no separate graduate thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline was located.

02Published procedure

What the university's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: Not stated in the sources reviewed. The Academic Integrity Policy names no adviser, support person, attorney or observer for the student at any stage. Of a Board hearing it says only: "The student, the instructor or other appropriate University official, and the Academic Integrity Monitor for the case, who will have primary responsibility to present the infractions, will attend the Board meeting. Generally these individuals will be the only persons in attendance, other than the Board and AI&I staff." On recording, the policy is explicit: "AUAIB hearings are audio recorded. Audio records of these hearings will be made available to applicable students for review in an AI&I staff member's office. Any audio recording that is made by the University may be listened to by the responding student but not copied." Searched for a companion right in the policy, the sanction rubric, the office's student and faculty FAQs, and the Catalog's grievance and appeal regulations; none was located. — Academic Integrity Policy, §III.C.2 and §III.F.2 ("Current as of July 25, 2024"; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Academic Integrity Policy (PDF)
What follows on the record: "Records of suspension and expulsion due to academic misconduct will be noted on the student's transcript. Designations of 'Suspension' are recorded on the transcript during the period of suspension. The academic misconduct 'Suspension' will be removed only when a student has fulfilled the conditions of re-enrollment. If a student has been expelled, the 'Expulsion' designation remains on the transcript indefinitely." The office's student FAQ states what happens below that threshold: "A Level 1 violation (0.5 sanction point) will not result in a notation on your transcript. A Level 2 violation or higher (1.0-3.0 sanction points) will result in an XF for the course and is noted on your transcript indicating that an academic integrity violation occurred. After meeting certain criteria, undergraduate students are able to petition to have the 'X' removed from their transcript. The option to remove an X from the transcript is not available to graduate students." On retention, the policy states: "AI&I academic dishonesty records are deleted seven years from the semester in which the final decision letter is rendered, but any records that involve the accrual of 1.0 or more total sanction points, suspension, or expulsion, are maintained indefinitely." — Academic Integrity Policy, §III.E and §III.I ("Current as of July 25, 2024"; retrieved Aug 25, 2026); Academic Initiatives and Integrity student FAQ (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Academic Integrity Policy (PDF) · Frequently Asked Questions — Students

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

The standard of proof and the route a case takes are both in the policy (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

"The standard of proof in a case arising under the Academic Integrity Policy shall be the 'preponderance of the evidence.' A 'preponderance of the evidence' shall mean evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence to the contrary; evidence which shows that something more likely than not is true." "The Academic Integrity Monitor is the person responsible for determining whether charges will be filed against a student; the Monitor may make such a determination even if the faculty member does not wish to pursue a case." "The Academic Integrity Monitor shall meet separately with the student to notify the student of the alleged violations of the Academic Integrity Policy, discuss the evidence on record, and gather information from the student about the matter. It is important to note students will not be provided with a copy of the complete written record in this meeting. Students must request this record in accordance with the procedures outlined in the 'Request to Inspect Records' section of this policy (III.F.)." "Ordinarily, in making its determinations, the Board will not take student intent into account, but instead will focus primarily on the actions of those involved."

Source: Academic Integrity Policy (PDF), Definitions and §III.A. On whether a student appears before the Board, the policy states: "Ordinarily, a student will meet with the Board only if the Board so requests it, having already met with the Academic Integrity Monitor and provided their written statement for the Board. However, if the student is facing a possible sanction of suspension or expulsion, or loss of a scholarship because the conditions of the scholarship specify certain ethical conduct, they shall be permitted to meet with the Board and present witnesses and evidence, if the student desires." Where a student and instructor are asked to appear, "each must have at least ten working days' notice of the hearing," and where material is added to the record the student "shall have at least three business days prior to the Board hearing to review the information."

Sanctions are set by a Faculty Senate–approved rubric rather than by the instructor. The rubric assigns sanction points that are "cumulative over the length of the student's tenure at the University of Arkansas," and names artificial intelligence inside its plagiarism definitions — a Level One violation covers submitting the work of "another person or entity" as one's own and adds "This includes work generated by artificial intelligence," while a Level Two violation covers the same conduct in degree work outside a course and names "another person or entity (e.g. artificial intelligence)." The rubric then states the consequence attached to each point total, from a letter of reprimand at 0.0 points, to an immediate zero at 0.5, to a course grade of XF at 1.0, to suspension at 1.5 through 2.5, to permanent expulsion at 3.0 or more. Source: Sanction Rubric — Academic Initiatives and Integrity (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026).

On appeals, the policy states (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

"Students (or the instructor, with the support of the Department Chair) may appeal a determination by the AUAIB to the Provost and Chancellor, but only when the appeals are based on the following grounds: (1) a procedural error occurred; (2) an objective assessment of the evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard does not support a finding of responsibility, (3) new and significant evidence has been identified after the Board hearing and the evidence was unavailable or could not have been obtained prior to the Board hearing; (4) the sanctions are inconsistent with the Sanction Rubric; or (5) that additional sanctions imposed are excessive." "To effect an appeal, the student (or instructor/department), within five working days of transmittal of the decision of the AUAIB to the student (or instructor/department), shall request that the Provost and Chancellor review the case, using the 'Appeal Form' found on the website of the AI&I."

Source: Academic Integrity Policy (PDF), §III.D.

Two further first-party points. The Catalog's general Student Grievances and Appeals regulation does not cover this route: it states the policy "does not apply to matters which are covered by other campus policies or appeal procedures, including, but not limited to […] violations of the Code of Student Life or the university's Academic Dishonesty Policy." Source: Student Grievances and Appeals — Catalog of Studies, 2026-27 edition (retrieved Aug 25, 2026). And the integrity office tells instructors to hold the grade while a case runs: "Faculty should refrain from imposing any type of grading penalty until the AUAIB makes a decision that would support doing so." Source: Frequently Asked Questions — Faculty (retrieved Aug 25, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Academic Integrity Policy — standard of proof, AIM and AUAIB procedure, appeals, records, transcript notation, Turnitin	honesty.uark.edu — Academic Integrity Policy (PDF) (states "Current as of July 25, 2024"; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Sanction Rubric — violation levels, sanction points, XF, removal of the "X"	honesty.uark.edu/policy/sanction-rubric.php (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Turnitin AI Writing Detection — thresholds and corroborating factors before a report (Executive Director for Academic Initiatives and Integrity)	tips.uark.edu — Turnitin: Assessing AI Writing Detection Reports (page dated Jul 24, 2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Honorlock — AI-analysed proctoring, fully online classes only	tips.uark.edu/about-honorlock (page dated Apr 3, 2025; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Integrity office FAQ (faculty) — reporting window, grade held pending decision, how to read Similarity and AI reports	honesty.uark.edu/faculty/faculty-faq.php (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Integrity office FAQ (students) — Board participation, appeal window, transcript notation	honesty.uark.edu/students/students-faq.php (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Turnitin self-check course for students	honesty.uark.edu/students/turnitin-for-students.php (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Student Grievances and Appeals — states this route does not cover academic dishonesty	catalog.uark.edu — Student Grievances and Appeals (2026-27 edition; retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Record retention and transcript notation (Academic Integrity Policy §III.E and §III.I)	honesty.uark.edu — Academic Integrity Policy (PDF) (retrieved Aug 25, 2026)
Ombuds or student-advocacy office	None located on the institution's own pages in this review. Searched uark.edu for "ombuds", "ombudsperson", "student advocacy" and "dean of students advocacy"; the only results were university news articles from 2007 and 2012 describing a Student Ombuds Office, with no current office page, and neither the Academic Integrity Policy nor the Catalog's grievance regulation names such an office (searched Aug 25, 2026)
Academic Initiatives and Integrity — office contact	470 N. Campus Walk, 3rd Floor of the CORD, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 · 479-575-5229 · honesty@uark.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 25, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-08-25 — Page created. Every quotation on this page was captured first-party this date from the uark.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. The Academic Integrity Policy PDF was read end to end and its own section lettering (III.A through III.K) is what this page cites. Source page dates as displayed: the policy states "Current as of July 25, 2024"; the TIPS guide on AI Writing Detection reports is dated Jul 24, 2024; the Honorlock overview is dated Apr 3, 2025; the Catalog is the 2026-27 edition. The Sanction Rubric page and the two integrity-office FAQs display no date of their own, which is stated beside each rather than glossed. Slug "arkansas" was chosen for the Fayetteville campus; a future Arkansas State University page would take a distinct slug, the same collision handling used for ohiostate.

2026-08-25 — Detection sweep recorded. Searched on uark.edu: Turnitin including its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; the Blackboard Learn Ultra tool catalogue and the Blackboard help site; the teaching-support unit's tool overviews and assessment categories; the integrity office's faculty and student pages; and the graduate thesis and dissertation pipeline. Documented in institutional use on the university's own pages: Turnitin similarity, Turnitin AI Writing Detection, and Honorlock (fully online classes only). Named on university pages at a weaker provenance and recorded as such rather than upgraded: Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor, which the teaching-support unit recommends for classes that are not fully online and which the Blackboard help site supports, and ProctorU, which appears on individual online graduate program pages (engineering management and operations management) rather than in any campus-wide service description. Came back empty on uark.edu in this review: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Proctorio and Examity, and any separate graduate thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline.

2026-08-25 — Step-2 disqualification check: clear pass, and unusually so. Unlike the middle-status schools on this site, the University of Arkansas does not merely license a detector and caution against it — its integrity office publishes an adjudication-facing reading of the AI Writing Detection report, with a stated word-count floor, a stated percentage threshold, a list of corroborating factors, and a referral route to a college Academic Integrity Monitor. The nearest thing to a caution is the same guide's instruction that a flagged percentage "should not automatically result in a report of academic misconduct." Nothing recommending against detection or disabling the tool was located.

2026-08-25 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE, and the reason the "Who may be present" row reads as an absence: the Academic Integrity Policy names no adviser, support person, attorney or silent observer for the student anywhere in its procedures, and describes a Board hearing attended by the student, the instructor, the Academic Integrity Monitor, the Board and office staff, "Generally these individuals will be the only persons in attendance." Searched the policy, the sanction rubric, both office FAQs and the Catalog's grievance regulation; no companion right was located. This is thinner than every other built page on this site, and it is stated as a located absence rather than assumed to exist. (2) The policy states the student is not given the complete written record at the Academic Integrity Monitor meeting and must request it separately under §III.F — a first-party procedural detail worth surfacing. (3) FALSE LEAD, recorded so it is not chased again and deliberately NOT carried on the page: a search-engine rendering of the office's summary of the appeal grounds ended "that additional sanctions imposed are inconsistent," where the policy PDF reads "that additional sanctions imposed are excessive." No first-party page carrying the "inconsistent" wording was captured, so there is no verified divergence to reproduce; the page quotes the policy PDF only, and the earlier draft's sentence about the discrepancy was removed for want of a first-party source. (4) No current ombuds or student-advocacy office was located; the only material found was university news coverage from 2007 and 2012 of a Student Ombuds Office, which is not evidence of a currently published office and was not used.

2026-08-25 — Deliberate omissions. Superseded versions of the Academic Integrity Policy (dated 5-1-18 and 4-11-19) and of the Sanction Rubric (dated 12-6-23) remain reachable on honesty.uark.edu, and a Faculty Senate agenda PDF carries proposed rubric edits; none is quoted or linked here, and only the current policy and the live rubric page are used. The Turnitin vendor guidance and the academic studies the TIPS guide cites are third-party and are not reproduced. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-25). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-25 — Boundary review before hand-off, corrections recorded. An independent read of this page against the site's editorial boundaries produced four changes, all made the same date. (1) MATERIAL: a sentence reproducing a divergence in the appeal grounds was REMOVED, because one side of it was a search-engine rendering rather than a captured first-party page. The false lead is now recorded in the findings entry above instead, where it belongs. (2) PROVENANCE: Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor and ProctorU were being carried at the same weight as Turnitin and Honorlock. They are not. Respondus appears on a university page as the teaching-support unit's recommendation, and ProctorU appears on individual online graduate program pages; the docket line, section 01 and the sweep paragraph now all state that weaker provenance instead of describing either as documented in institutional use. The index row was updated to match the docket. (3) The absence statement about evidentiary weight now names the pages searched for it. (4) Three sentences of framing were removed from section 01 and section 02.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. The TIPS faculty guide "Turnitin: Assessing AI Writing Detection Reports" (still dated Jul 24, 2024, still attributed to Chris Bryson, Ph.D., Executive Director for Academic Initiatives and Integrity) was re-fetched and every quoted passage remains verbatim — the university-wide Turnitin availability line, the "should not automatically result in a report … this alert should call for further review" caution, the 300-word / over-20% / under-1%-false-positive threshold, the four corroborating factors, and the "well within the scope of an instructor's duty to report … investigated by an AIM" referral rule. The integrity office's faculty FAQ still carries verbatim the AI-report "should serve as an alert … to further evaluate the work in question" answer, the parallel Similarity-report answer, and the "refrain from imposing any type of grading penalty until the AUAIB makes a decision" instruction. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin (similarity and AI Writing Detection) and Honorlock remain documented in institutional use; Respondus LockDown Browser with Monitor (recommended for non-fully-online classes) and ProctorU (program-page mentions) remain at their weaker provenance; no new institutional detector was located first-party. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-25: the Academic Integrity Policy PDF, the Sanction Rubric, the Honorlock TIPS page, the student FAQ, the Turnitin-for-students page, and the Catalog grievance regulation — flagged for the next pass. Office finding and the no-ombuds finding unchanged. Archive capture: Save Page Now was unreachable from this environment this date (endpoint blocked); captures remain pending. Automated source re-verification; no human review implied.

2026-08-30 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Each capture below was requested through Save Page Now and confirmed to play back. Captures added: Student Grievances and Appeals — Catalog of Studies → https://web.archive.org/web/20260830130326/https://catalog.uark.edu/undergraduatecatalog/academicregulations/studentacademicappeals/; Frequently Asked Questions — Faculty → https://web.archive.org/web/20260830130401/https://honesty.uark.edu/faculty/faculty-faq.php; Academic Integrity Policy (PDF) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260830130431/https://honesty.uark.edu/policy/academic-integrity-policy-as-of-7-25-24.pdf; Sanction Rubric → https://web.archive.org/web/20260830130455/https://honesty.uark.edu/policy/sanction-rubric.php; Turnitin for students → https://web.archive.org/web/20260830130648/https://honesty.uark.edu/students/turnitin-for-students.php. Three sources failed capture. Frequently Asked Questions — Students: the archiver's submission returned nothing usable and no capture was stored. About Honorlock — TIPS, and Turnitin: Assessing AI Writing Detection Reports — TIPS: the tips.uark.edu host answered the archiver with a service-unavailable error on both. All three remain uncaptured and are carried to the next pass; none has yet failed often enough to be held back as blocked.

2026-08-31 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Captures added: Frequently Asked Questions — Students → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831081928/https://honesty.uark.edu/students/students-faq.php. That page had failed capture on the previous pass and is now stored. Two sources failed again. About Honorlock — TIPS: the tips.uark.edu host answered the archiver with a service-unavailable error, as it did on 2026-08-30. Turnitin: Assessing AI Writing Detection Reports — TIPS: the archiver's submission returned a 404 rather than accepting the job. Both remain uncaptured and are carried to the next pass; neither has yet failed often enough to be held back as blocked.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.