University of Maryland Global Campus.

Detection status: Turnitin required for similarity checking on coursework, confirmed first-party; Academic Integrity Policy separately authorizes unnamed “software tools and other technologies” and lists text-similarity reports as case evidence; no first-party page names an AI-writing-detection feature specifically
Office in these sources: Office of Academic Integrity & Accountability (OAIA) · 240-799-1389 · integrityreview@umgc.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution’s own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Oct 6, 2026

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

UMGC’s published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case. UMGC’s Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25) governs allegations that a student engaged in academic misconduct within a course; a separate policy, Misconduct in Scholarly Work (Policy 150.50), governs research and scholarly misconduct by faculty, staff, and students working outside of coursework, and that policy itself directs coursework allegations to Policy 150.25 instead — it is not the process a student facing a classroom detection or plagiarism allegation would go through, and this page treats it accordingly. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What UMGC’s own pages document about AI detection — and what they don’t

UMGC’s Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25; Version Effective Date and Last Reviewed Dec 2, 2024; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) names AI-generated work directly among the conduct it prohibits:

"Submitting work generated by artificial intelligence as one's own work (including, without limitation, text, images, artwork, graphics, video, and audio) without appropriate attribution (e.g., quotation marks, in-text citation, and/or reference list citation)." "Word-for-word copying of significant portions of another's written work in any Academic Assessment without using quotation marks or other methods to show who originally wrote the work, including such work created by generative artificial intelligence tools, information, or materials (including, without limitation, text, images, artwork, graphics, video, and audio)."

Source: Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25). On detection technology itself, the Policy states only, in its Scope and Applicability section:

"The University may use software tools and other technologies to identify, track, and deter misconduct and support authentic education."

No vendor is named there. Describing what a Case Manager gathers while deciding a case, the same Policy lists “text similarity reports, coursework submissions, communication records, education records, information generated by University computing resources, and information from individuals who may have relevant knowledge” — again without naming a vendor. Source: Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25), Full Review section.

UMGC’s Effective Writing Center confirms, first-party, that the similarity tool is Turnitin (page metadata dated Aug 2, 2023; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"Turnitin is a service integrated into LEO Classrooms that can find and highlight matching or unoriginal text in a written assignment. It compares text in a document against a large database of electronic academic materials which it indexes and stores. Many or most faculty have enabled assignments for Turnitin in the LEO Classroom."

Source: Writing and Turnitin — Effective Writing Center. UMGC also documents Turnitin Draft Coach, a pre-submission check available to students: “Turnitin Draft Coach is available in UMGC’s Office 365 Apps in Microsoft Word on the web. It allows writing and grammar checking, similarity checks, and citation checking before submitting in the LEO online classroom.” Source: How do I use Turnitin Draft Coach? — UMGC Help Center (page metadata dated Dec 8, 2025; retrieved Sep 2, 2026).

No page located in this review — the Writing and Turnitin FAQ, the Draft Coach instructions, the Academic Integrity Policy and its Procedures, or the Office of Academic Integrity & Accountability’s own landing page — names Turnitin’s AI-writing indicator, or any other AI-writing-detection product (Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship), as a feature UMGC has enabled. This review also searched UMGC’s proctoring and testing-services pages and found no named AI-detection proctoring vendor (Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and no separate graduate- or doctoral-pipeline detection tool distinct from the similarity checker described above. Whether Turnitin’s AI-writing indicator specifically is turned on for UMGC’s Turnitin instance is accordingly not stated in the sources reviewed. A separate, unrelated tool — AI Writing Review, a feedback service in the Effective Writing Center that gives students automated writing coaching on drafts — is not a detection tool and is not treated as one on this page.

02Published procedure

What UMGC’s own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: “If a telephone call or videoconference is scheduled to request information from the Student, the Student may have another individual present for support and advice; however, that individual may not speak on behalf of the Student.” — Procedures for Reports of Academic Misconduct (Policy 150.30), Full Review section (Version Effective Date and Last Reviewed Dec 2, 2024; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) · Procedures for Reports of Academic Misconduct. Recording is separately, and flatly, addressed by the companion policy: “Parties may not make audio or video recordings of interviews, meetings, hearings, or any part of the process.” — Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25), Records section (same dates) · Academic Integrity Policy
What follows on the record: “All Disciplinary Consequences will be noted on the Student’s transcript.” Removal is possible but limited: “Record Removal is only available for Consequences up to and including Suspension and is not available for Dismissal, Expulsion, Invalidation of Credit, or Revocation of a Credential,” and “A Student may not request Record Removal until two (2) years have passed since the date the Consequence for Academic Misconduct was completed.” — Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25), Disciplinary Consequences and Academic Misconduct Record Removals sections (Version Effective Date and Last Reviewed Dec 2, 2024; retrieved Sep 2, 2026) · Academic Integrity Policy

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

From the Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25) and its companion Procedures (Policy 150.30) (both Version Effective Date and Last Reviewed Dec 2, 2024; retrieved Sep 2, 2026):

"[T]he response to the Notice is due within five (5) Business Days of the Notice being sent to the Student." "The Deadline for the Student to respond to the Documentation Summary in writing ('Response') is six (6) Business Days from the date the Case Manager sent a copy of the Documentation Summary to the Student." "The Case Manager will make a decision based on whether the information in the Documentation Summary makes it more likely than not that the student is responsible for a policy violation." "The Student may request to appeal the Decision by emailing the Case Manager at integrityreview@umgc.edu within five (5) Business Days of the date the Decision was sent to the Student." "The grounds for appeal are limited to the following: New or significant information relevant to the policy violation that was not reasonably available at the time of the Full Review; and/or Documented and specific deviations from the University's Policy and/or Procedures."

Sources: Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25) and Procedures for Reports of Academic Misconduct (Policy 150.30). Where an appeal is granted, a Decision Appeal Panel of “three (3) UMGC employees from at least two (2) different departments” reviews it and issues a written decision “within fifteen (15) Business Days.” Consequences the Policy lists range from non-disciplinary Educational Remediation through Failure in the Course, Disciplinary Probation, Suspension, Dismissal, Expulsion, Invalidation of Credit, and Revocation of Credential; the Policy states plainly that “Dissatisfaction with the Decision and/or Consequence is not a valid basis for appeal.” What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these quotations are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Academic Integrity Policy (150.25)	umgc.edu/administration/.../academic-integrity
Procedures for Reports of Academic Misconduct (150.30)	umgc.edu/administration/.../academic-integrity-procedures
Misconduct in Scholarly Work (150.50) — governs faculty/staff research misconduct and student work outside coursework; not the process for a classroom detection allegation, per the policy’s own text	umgc.edu/administration/.../scholarly-work-misconduct
Office of Academic Integrity & Accountability	240-799-1389 · integrityreview@umgc.edu (from the office’s landing page, retrieved Sep 2, 2026) · umgc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/academic-integrity
Writing and Turnitin (Effective Writing Center) — Turnitin similarity-checking FAQ	umgc.edu/current-students/.../writing-and-turnitin
Turnitin Draft Coach instructions	umgc.edu/help/article/how-to-use-turnitin-draft-coach
Learner Resolution Services — umbrella landing page listing OAIA, Resolution Management, Student Conduct, and THRIVE; no unit titled ombuds	umgc.edu/current-students/.../learner-resolution-services
Learner Resolution Management — general student-grievance pathway (formerly reached at a URL indexed as an Ombudsman page, now redirected here); not described by UMGC as confidential or independent, and foreclosed for academic-integrity appeals by Policy 150.25’s own terms (not an ombuds office)	umgc.edu/current-students/.../complaint-resolution

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

2026-09-02 — Page created. Detection-inventory sweep run first: named-vendor sweep across umgc.edu and its library/help subdomains found no reference to Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, or Grammarly Authorship, and no reference to Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, or Examity; category sweep of the LMS (LEO Classrooms), the IT/help-center article catalogue, the Effective Writing Center’s pages, and the library’s Artificial Intelligence guide found only Turnitin (similarity checking plus Draft Coach) and a separate, unrelated AI Writing Review student writing-coaching tool, not a detection tool. Disqualification check run on that completed inventory: not disqualified — Turnitin is actively required for coursework similarity checking and nothing found is documented as disabled or recommended against; this is University of Maryland Global Campus specifically, verified first-party on umgc.edu, and no finding was carried over from University of Maryland, College Park, a separately governed institution. Captured first-party this date: the Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 150.25) and its companion Procedures (Policy 150.30), both dated Version Effective Date and Last Reviewed Dec 2, 2024; the Misconduct in Scholarly Work policy (Policy 150.50), read in full to confirm it governs faculty/staff research misconduct and non-coursework student work rather than classroom AI-detection allegations — its own text states “Allegations of academic dishonesty performed by a student within a course are handled in accordance with Policy 150.25,” which is why it is not used as a primary source above; the Effective Writing Center’s Writing and Turnitin FAQ and the Turnitin Draft Coach help article; and the Office of Academic Integrity & Accountability’s contact block (240-799-1389, integrityreview@umgc.edu). Ombuds/advocacy finding. A general web search surfaced an indexed page once titled Ombudsman | UMGC with a since-superseded contact address; that indexed title and address are not verified first-party and are not relied on here. Fetching that same URL directly this date returns a server-side redirect (HTTP 301/302) to Learner Resolution Management, and the umbrella Learner Resolution Services landing page (retrieved Sep 2, 2026) lists four units — Office of Academic Integrity & Accountability, Resolution Management, Student Conduct, and the THRIVE behavioral-intervention team — none titled ombuds. Resolution Management’s own page states that information shared with it “may be shared with authorized team members or other university personnel who have a legitimate need to know,” i.e., is not held confidential, and Policy 150.25 states its own appeal process is “the sole right to appeal a Consequence for Academic Misconduct” and may not be pursued “under ... any other University Policy or Procedures” — which forecloses Resolution Management as an avenue for an academic-integrity matter specifically. On that evidence the docket records no ombuds or advocacy office rather than listing a non-independent, non-confidential office as one. Nothing on this page is paraphrase-pending; every quotation above was captured from a page fetched directly (no Cloudflare, WAF, or client-rendered-portal block encountered on any umgc.edu source in this review). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-03). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-09-13 — Editorial review. Carrie Schluter read this page in full against its recorded first-party sources and found no change required. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-13).

2026-10-06 — Nightly QC pass (gw-institution-review, scheduled, unattended): all 8 recipe sources re-captured via tools/capture.py and mechanically re-verified against this page; zero fidelity failures. No human review is claimed for this entry. Sources 1, 2 and 4 through 8 returned marginally less text than the prior capture (whitespace-collapsed); every quotation, contact fact and stated absence this page cites still traces to the fresh capture.

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