University of Cincinnati.

Detection status: Turnitin embedded in Canvas; central AI guidance says instructors "should not over rely" on detectors; Student Code of Conduct names "unauthorized use of artificial intelligence" as cheating; no AI-indicator statement located
Office in these sources: Student Conduct and Community Standards · 735 Steger Student Life Center · 513-556-6814 · conduct@uc.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Office of the University Ombuds — UC states it “supports all UC faculty, staff, students” and that it is “an independent office” meeting “informally and confidentially.” 607 Swift Hall · 513-556-5956 · ombuds@ucmail.uc.edu (UC states it does not provide ombuds services by email) · uc.edu/campus-life/ombuds-office
Sources last checked: Sep 2, 2026

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

UC's published sources on AI detection and academic misconduct, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case. At UC the governing document is the Student Code of Conduct, an Ohio administrative rule; the process itself begins with the instructor and runs through a College Conduct Administrator in the college where the alleged misconduct occurred, so college-level practice and your own syllabus may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What is documented — and what isn't

Turnitin runs at UC inside Canvas. From UC Libraries' faculty guide, written by UC's Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning (page dated Jan 8, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"Turnitin is a plagiarism detection tool that is embedded within Canvas. By applying Turnitin to a Canvas assignment, you can check the originality of student work against the expansive Turnitin database."

Source: Preventing Student Plagiarism: A Guide for Faculty — Turnitin. The setup instructions on that page describe similarity-report settings only; they do not mention an AI writing indicator.

UC's central artificial-intelligence site addresses AI detection directly, in instructor-facing terms. From AI Resources for Teaching and Learning at ai.uc.edu (page carried no visible revision date; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"Generative AI detection tools, like Turnitin, can produce both false positives and false negatives, so instructors should not over rely on these platforms when determining whether students are using AI." "1. Carefully Analyze the student work – what other issues become apparent, commonly the result of AI. If using TurnItIn, familiarize yourself with their AI detector with this guide." "2. If AI misuse is suspected, it is highly recommended that you reach out to the student. It is prudent not to accuse the student of AI misuse, but to inquire about the irregularities in the assignment." "3. If you feel that the infraction violates UC Conduct Policy (PDF), treat the academic misconduct as any other violation and follow college policies for reporting misconduct."

Source: AI Resources for Teaching and Learning — Artificial Intelligence at UC. The same page states, on whether AI writing can be detected: "The research suggests this answer is still up for debate," and "Even if we cannot be 100% certain of AI-generated text, we should approach potential academic integrity violations with the same care and through the same procedures as previously." The "this guide" it links for the AI detector is Turnitin's own vendor documentation, not a UC statement.

Two things are therefore documented and one is not. UC documents that Turnitin is embedded in Canvas, and UC documents central guidance to instructors that contemplates the use of Turnitin's AI detector while warning against over-reliance on it. No campus-wide UC statement enabling or disabling the Turnitin AI writing indicator, naming another AI detector in institutional use, or addressing the evidentiary use of AI-detection results was located in this review. That absence is recorded here rather than filled in.

On AI use itself, the Student Code of Conduct is explicit. Effective August 15, 2026, rule 3361:40-5-05 was reorganized into a base rule plus three numbered sub-rules; academic misconduct now sits in rule 3361:40-5-05.1. Under "Cheating," among the listed examples (rule effective Aug 15, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"(h) Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence."

Source: Ohio Administrative Code, rule 3361:40-5-05.1. This provision moved and was relettered from "(viii)" in the rule's July 2023 revision — the version this page quoted since publication — but its wording is unchanged. UC Libraries notes the same underlying provision, not yet updated for the reorganization: "The recently revised UC Student Code of Conduct lists 'unauthorized use of artificial intelligence' as a form of academic misconduct under 'Cheating' (p.10)" — Generative AI and Academic Integrity (page dated Jan 8, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026), still citing the superseded page numbering. The rule does not name any detection tool, and what counts as "unauthorized" is left to course-level rules; UC's teaching guidance directs instructors to "Use your syllabi to communicate whether and how generative AI tools can be used in your courses."

02Published process

What UC's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: “Parties may have one adviser of their choice. […] the adviser may not participate as a spokesperson or vocal advocate in meetings or hearings.” The rule adds: “Parties are required to notify the office of student conduct and community standards or the college conduct administrator three days prior to any meetings or hearings if the adviser is an attorney and plans to attend the hearing and/or meeting.” — Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05 (effective Aug 15, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) · Ohio Administrative Code, rule 3361:40-5-05. The Process Information page below still states this window as “72 hours,” not yet updated to the rule's current “three days” — both are reproduced.
What follows on the record: “These records are maintained for a minimum of seven years, per federal law. However, there is no notation on the student’s transcript at any point, regardless of outcome.” — Academic Misconduct Process FAQ, Student Conduct and Community Standards (no visible revision date; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) · Academic Misconduct Process FAQ

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

The Student Code of Conduct states the standard of proof and the notification rule (rule effective Aug 15, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"The standard of proof is based on a preponderance of evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that a violation has occurred. Upon receipt of a complaint, all respondents are considered not responsible unless this standard is met." "Listed timelines exclude weekends, university recognized holidays, term breaks, and anytime when the university is closed or classes are not in session." "All written notices to students are considered received upon delivery to the student's university of Cincinnati email address." "Parties may have one adviser of their choice. An adviser may consult with a party verbally or in writing in a quiet, non-disruptive manner, but the adviser may not participate as a spokesperson or vocal advocate in meetings or hearings."

Source: Ohio Administrative Code, rule 3361:40-5-05. The academic-misconduct sub-rule, rule 3361:40-5-05.1, sets out the instructor-student resolution sequence:

"Within ten days of discovering the alleged misconduct, the instructor (or in the absence of an instructor, the academic unit head or the dean, or designee) will provide the student with notice via the notification form. […] The student may have an adviser at the review meeting. This meeting must be scheduled within five days of the student receiving the notification form." "The student has five days to return the completed resolution form to the instructor. The student may choose one of the following three options: (a) Option 1. Accept responsibility for the misconduct violation(s) and agree to the sanction(s). […] (b) Option 2. Accept responsibility but challenge a sanction and request a college hearing panel. […] (c) Option 3. Deny responsibility and request a college hearing panel." "If the student fails to respond to the resolution form, and the proposed sanction is less than a college or university suspension or expulsion, the allegations and misconduct violation(s) are accepted as true, and the finding(s) and sanction(s) are final, but may be appealed as set forth in rule 3361:40-5-05.3 of the Administrative Code. For proposed sanctions that result in a college or university suspension or expulsion, a college hearing panel will be scheduled."

The Student Conduct and Community Standards office publishes the same process in operational detail. The following is instructor-facing, quoted because it describes the process a student experiences (page carried no visible revision date; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"The instructor has 10 business days after discovering the misconduct to formally notify the student of the allegation. […] The instructor must send the Notification Form to the student within the 10 day period. If the instructor does not, the allegation will be dismissed by the CCA." "Under the Student Code of Conduct (SCOC), students are allowed to continue in the course without prejudice until the academic misconduct process has concluded. The Academic Misconduct Process concludes after students have exhausted their appeal options and/or the time to appeal the outcome has lapsed." "The Review Meeting serves to allow the instructor and student to discuss: The alleged misconduct that occurred. The evidence to support the allegation of misconduct. The instructor's determination of responsibility, or reason for dismissal of the allegation. Potential proposed sanctions if there is a finding of responsibility." "The instructor must refrain from any action (including giving a grade) until the process has concluded." "Students are required to notify the College Conduct Administrator 72 hours prior to any meetings or hearings if the Adviser is an attorney and plans to attend the hearing and/or meeting." "The CHP shall consist of: The hearing chair, who will be the CCA or designee and only vote in the event of a tie; One representative selected by the college faculty; One representative selected either by the college tribunal of Student Government for undergraduates, or by the graduate college tribunal of Graduate Student Governance Association for graduate students." "The student and instructor can challenge any member of the CHP for conflict of interest via an email to the CCA." "Within three (3) days, the hearing chair of the CHP will notify the student of the CHP's decision and appeal procedures."

Source: Process Information — Academic Misconduct, Student Conduct and Community Standards. The same page describes where evidence in these cases can come from, naming UC's proctoring vendor and Canvas records: a faculty member seeking "access to data collected by Honorlock as part of an investigation into alleged academic misconduct" goes "through the CCA who will work with the faculty and the Office of Information Security," and "other information that would need support from IT (such as CANVAS logs or messages)" is requested by email to the address given there.

On appeals, the code limits the grounds and states the window. Rule 3361:40-5-05.3, the appeals sub-rule (effective Aug 15, 2026; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"Permissible grounds for appeals will be limited to the following: (1) New information: new information was discovered, which was not available at the time of the hearing, and such evidence could affect the decision in the case. (2) Procedural error: a substantial procedural error occurred in the process which affected the decision in the case. (3) Sanction of suspension or expulsion: a sanction of suspension or expulsion from the university was imposed and is not commensurate with the violation. (4) Non-Title IX sexual harassment appeal of sanctions: In appeals involving crimes of violence or non-Title IX sexual harassment, any sanction may be appealed by either the complainant or respondent on the grounds that the sanction is not commensurate with the violation. (5) Notice of outcome: Respondent has a good basis for failing to respond to the notice of outcome due to illness or another emergency. Respondent must specify if they are appealing the finding of responsibility and/or the sanctions." "An appeal must be submitted in writing to the director of the office of student conduct and community standards within five days of receipt of the college hearing panel or university conduct board's decision letter unless the office of student conduct and community standards specifies a longer period of time in writing based on a party's written request for additional time not to exceed ten days from the day of receipt of the decision letter."

Source: Ohio Administrative Code, rule 3361:40-5-05.3. This resolves a discrepancy this page has carried since publication: the office's Appeals page (no visible revision date; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) has long stated a fifth ground, "Notice of Outcome," that the rule's three-ground July 2023 list did not carry; the current rule now states five grounds and includes that ground as its own (5), along with a new (4) scoped to non-Title IX sexual harassment appeals. The webpage's wording is unchanged and is reproduced above as (5).

On records, UC's academic misconduct FAQ states (no visible revision date; retrieved Sep 2, 2026): "Violations of Academic Misconduct policies are housed in the Student Conduct and Community Standards office once they are finalized. These records are maintained for a minimum of seven years, per federal law. However, there is no notation on the student's transcript at any point, regardless of outcome." The same page states that where the process cannot finish before grades are due, "a student will receive an Incomplete, 'I,' grade until the completion of the process." Source: Academic Misconduct Process FAQ. 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
Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05 (base rule, effective Aug 15, 2026)	codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05
Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05.1 (academic misconduct sub-rule, effective Aug 15, 2026)	codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05.1
Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05.3 (appeals sub-rule, effective Aug 15, 2026)	codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05.3
Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05 (PDF, July 2023 revision, superseded Aug 15, 2026 — link now dead)	uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/studentaffairs-62/studentconduct/SCOC72023.pdf
Student Code of Conduct (office landing page)	uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/student-code-of-conduct.html
Academic misconduct process information	uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/academic-misconduct/faculty.html
Academic Misconduct Process FAQ	uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/academic-misconduct/FAQ.html
Appeals	uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/appeals.html
AI Resources for Teaching and Learning (central AI guidance, instructor-facing)	ai.uc.edu/about/rftl
AI Guide for students	ai.uc.edu/students/ai-guide
Turnitin in Canvas (UC Libraries / CET&L faculty guide)	guides.libraries.uc.edu/prevent-plagiarism/turnitin
Generative AI and Academic Integrity (UC Libraries)	guides.libraries.uc.edu/prevent-plagiarism/genAI
College Conduct Administrators, by college	Listed on the process information page (retrieved Sep 2, 2026)
Student Conduct and Community Standards	735 Steger Student Life Center, Cincinnati OH 45221 · 513-556-6814 · conduct@uc.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Sep 2, 2026)
Office of the University Ombuds	607 Swift Hall, Cincinnati OH 45221-0180 · 513-556-5956 · ombuds@ucmail.uc.edu · uc.edu/campus-life/ombuds-office (from the office's pages, retrieved Sep 2, 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

2026-08-23 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the uc.edu, ai.uc.edu and guides.libraries.uc.edu pages linked beside them. Source page dates where published: Jan 8, 2026 (both UC Libraries guide pages, from their Dublin Core modified dates); the Student Code of Conduct PDF is the July 2023 revision of Ohio administrative rule 3361:40-5-05. The ai.uc.edu AI-resources page, the Student Conduct process, FAQ and appeals pages published no revision date; retrieval date only is given for those. Captured first-party: the Turnitin-in-Canvas description, the central AI-detection guidance, the code's "unauthorized use of artificial intelligence" clause under Cheating, the preponderance standard, the notification and resolution-form sequence, the college hearing panel composition, the appeal grounds and five-day window, and the records and transcript statements. Deliberately omitted: any statement that UC has enabled or disabled the Turnitin AI writing indicator — no first-party page saying either was located, and the omission is stated in section 01 rather than resolved by inference from third-party trackers. Also noted without resolution: UC's appeals page lists a fifth appeal ground ("Notice of Outcome") that does not appear among the four grounds in the code; both lists are reproduced. A second Student Code of Conduct PDF exists at uc.edu/content/dam/uc/conduct/docs/SCOC.pdf; it was not captured in this run, and only the July 2023 file that UC Libraries links is quoted here. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-23 — Ombuds capture added this date: UC publishes an Office of the University Ombuds serving students among all community members, describing itself as independent and meeting informally and confidentially. UC's own contact page states that ombuds services are not provided by email. Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review.

2026-08-23 — Section 02 now opens with the two questions an adviser raises first. Both answers were already quoted in this page’s section-02 prose — the adviser provision from the Student Code of Conduct, the records answer from the academic misconduct FAQ — and were hoisted into the block rather than re-fetched; the prose below is unchanged, and the dates shown are the dates this page already recorded. Automated pass; no human review is claimed for this entry.

2026-08-24 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review. All ten linked sources reachable and unchanged: the UC Libraries Turnitin and Generative AI & Academic Integrity guide pages (both still Jan 8, 2026), the ai.uc.edu Resources for Teaching and Learning page, the Student Code of Conduct PDF (rule 3361:40-5-05, effective July 21, 2023, read in full), the Academic Misconduct Process FAQ, the Process Information page, the Appeals page, and the Ombuds Office page. Every quotation on this page compared verbatim against the current text, including the Code's "(viii) Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence" clause, the preponderance standard, the notification and resolution sequence, the CHP composition, the four code appeal grounds (a)–(d) and the five-day appeal window, and the ombuds office description. All confirmed unchanged. Noted, not resolved: the Ombuds Office page's "Send us an email" button links to Ombuds@uc.edu, while its Contact Us footer — the address this page has quoted since publication — lists ombuds@ucmail.uc.edu; both addresses appear on the same current page, and this page continues to reproduce the Contact Us address. Detection-status search re-run: no first-party UC statement enabling or disabling the Turnitin AI writing indicator was located this date either; the absence stands. Office contact details (Student Conduct and Community Standards; Office of the University Ombuds) re-confirmed unchanged. Convention backfill: the two prior appearances of hello@gatheredwork.com on this page (footer and this log) are now live mailto links, matching site convention. Archive captures: still pending — Save Page Now (web.archive.org/save) remains unreachable from this run environment; no captures exist for this page's sources yet.

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. This is the first capture pass to reach this page, and every source attempted was stored. Captures added: AI Resources for Teaching and Learning — Artificial Intelligence at UC → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831083058/https://ai.uc.edu/about/rftl; ai.uc.edu/students/ai-guide → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831083230/https://ai.uc.edu/students/ai-guide; Generative AI and Academic Integrity → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831083400/https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/prevent-plagiarism/genAI; Preventing Student Plagiarism: A Guide for Faculty — Turnitin → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831083603/https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/prevent-plagiarism/turnitin; Academic Misconduct Process FAQ → https://web.archive.org/web/20260831083641/https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/academic-misconduct/FAQ.html. No source on this page failed capture in this pass. The page's remaining uncaptured sources were not reached within this pass's budget and are carried to the next.

2026-09-01 — Further 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: Academic Misconduct Process FAQ — Faculty → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901082509/https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/academic-misconduct/faculty.html; Appeals → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901082539/https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/conduct-process/appeals.html; Student Code of Conduct (office page) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901082715/https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/conduct/student-code-of-conduct.html; Ombuds Office → https://web.archive.org/web/20260901082746/https://www.uc.edu/campus-life/ombuds-office.html. One source failed capture: the Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05 (PDF, SCOC72023.pdf), where the request ended in a gateway timeout. This is that source's first failure; it rests seven days before it is eligible again. With this pass, every source this page links has now been attempted at least once.

2026-09-02 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review. Substantive finding, flagged for editorial attention: the Student Code of Conduct was replaced in its entirety effective August 15, 2026. The July 2023 PDF this page quoted (SCOC72023.pdf) now 404s at its recorded address; the office's Student Code of Conduct landing page now links a new PDF ("Board Rule 40-5-05 Student Code of Conduct - Effective 8-15-26.pdf") that has no extractable text layer (an image PDF produced by "Print to PDF"), so the current rule was read instead from its authoritative first-party publisher, the Ohio Administrative Code register at codes.ohio.gov, which also offers an authenticated PDF with a working text layer. The single rule 3361:40-5-05 has been reorganized into a base rule plus three numbered sub-rules — .1 (academic misconduct), .2 (nonacademic misconduct, not cited on this page), and .3 (appeals) — and every code-sourced quotation on this page has been re-verified against the current text and updated: the "Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence" cheating clause survives verbatim, relettered from "(viii)" to "(h)" and now in rule 3361:40-5-05.1; the adviser-notice window for an attorney adviser changed from "72 hours" to "three days" in the rule itself, though the office's own Process Information page still states "72 hours" and both are reproduced as an unresolved discrepancy; the preponderance-standard, timelines, and instructor-notification quotations each carry small wording changes (e.g., "university recognized holidays" added, "of their alleged violation" dropped) reflected above; the resolution-form option labels changed from roman numerals to letters; and the consequence of a student's non-response to a resolution form is no longer unconditional — the current rule adds that a proposed sanction of college or university suspension or expulsion now triggers a college hearing panel instead of an automatic final finding, which was not stated in the July 2023 text this page previously quoted. On appeals, a discrepancy this page has carried since publication is resolved: the office's Appeals webpage's fifth ground ("Notice of Outcome"), previously absent from the code's three lettered grounds, is now the rule's own numbered ground (5), and the rule adds a new ground (4) scoped to non-Title IX sexual harassment appeals; the three-lettered "Sanction of suspension or dismissal" ground is now numbered ground (3) and reads "Sanction of suspension or expulsion." The five-day appeal window and its ten-day extension provision are unchanged in substance. All nine other linked sources (the UC Libraries Turnitin and Generative AI & Academic Integrity guides, both still dated Jan 8, 2026; the ai.uc.edu Resources for Teaching and Learning and AI Guide pages; the Academic Misconduct Process FAQ; the Process Information page; the Appeals page; the Student Code of Conduct landing page; and the Ombuds Office page) were re-fetched and every quotation from them confirmed verbatim and unchanged, including the FAQ's seven-year-retention and no-transcript-notation statements and the Process Information page's CHP composition and 72-hour and three-day post-hearing notification quotations. Office contact details (Student Conduct and Community Standards; Office of the University Ombuds) re-confirmed unchanged, including the Ombuds@uc.edu / ombuds@ucmail.uc.edu discrepancy noted in the prior review, which persists unresolved. Detection-status search re-run: no first-party UC statement enabling or disabling the Turnitin AI writing indicator was located this date either; the absence stands. This page's fidelity packet (tools/packets/cincinnati-packet.txt) was re-captured through its existing recipe for the nine sources it reaches by automated transport; the tenth source, the Code of Conduct, required a session read this date because of the transport and text-layer issues described above and is not yet folded back into the automated recipe — a working session should decide how rule 3361:40-5-05.1's academic-misconduct sub-rule (and the .3 appeals sub-rule) are captured going forward, since the base rule alone no longer carries the AI-cheating clause. Archive captures: the four sources already captured predate this revision for the Code of Conduct specifically; the existing SCOC72023.pdf-adjacent captures on this page's other sources are unaffected. No capture exists yet for any of the three new Ohio Administrative Code URLs. Minor tooling note found in passing, unrelated to the Code of Conduct: the recaptured packet renders the AI-resources page's – entity as a plain hyphen rather than an en dash (confirmed against the live HTML, which serves the entity correctly), a pre-existing capture artifact this page's fidelity check has evidently carried uncaught since this page is not yet listed in tools/fidelity-gate.txt. This page still does not trace cleanly to its packet as of this pass — it was not gated before and is not gated now — for the reasons in this entry (the tenth source outside the automated packet, plus this dash artifact); a working session extending the recipe to the reorganized rule should also look at the entity-decoding behavior.

2026-09-02 (later pass) — 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. These are the three reorganized Ohio Administrative Code URLs the same-day entry above noted as not yet captured. Captures added: Student Code of Conduct, rule 3361:40-5-05 (base rule) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260902082658/https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05; rule 3361:40-5-05.1 (academic misconduct sub-rule) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260902082830/https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05.1; rule 3361:40-5-05.3 (appeals sub-rule) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260902082933/https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3361:40-5-05.3. No source on this page failed capture this pass.

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