Academic integrity: using Aithor.io within the rules
Aithor.io is built to help you write your own work, not to have someone else write it or to hide that you used AI. Your university's rules always come first, and the Process report shows how you worked, although it does not certify that no AI was used.
Where we stand, in five points
- Your institution’s rules come first. If your university or your lecturer doesn’t allow AI on an assignment, don’t use it there. If it is allowed with disclosure, disclose it.
- Your name goes on it. The guide suggests and you decide what goes into the document. You need to understand everything you submit and be able to defend it.
- Every citation should be something you can open. We work with real academic sources, but that doesn’t replace reading what you cite.
- Your process can be shown. The Process report shows how the paper was written, so you don’t have to rely on what a detector says.
- We don’t sell shortcuts. No Aithor.io feature is designed to hide AI use where it isn’t allowed.
Our terms and conditions say the same thing: you can’t use Aithor.io to break your institution’s academic rules, or to present text as your own when your institution requires you to disclose AI use.
Before you start: check your university’s rules
Rules differ between universities, and sometimes between modules on the same course. Bodies such as UNESCO ask universities and governments to set their own rules for generative AI in teaching and research [1], so there is no single answer. Before you use AI on an assignment:
- Find your university’s AI policy and the module handbook or syllabus.
- Ask your supervisor or lecturer which uses they accept: finding sources, organising ideas, drafting or proofreading.
- Keep what they tell you in writing, especially if it is an exception to the general policy.
If your institution asks you to disclose AI use, how to disclose AI use in an assignment walks you through it.
Which uses of Aithor.io you may need to disclose
This table doesn’t replace your institution’s policy. Use it to work out what to ask.
| What you do with Aithor.io | What it changes in your work | What we suggest |
|---|---|---|
| Find and read scholarly articles | The sources you choose and read | Cite the works you use; ask whether your policy also wants the tool named |
| Let the guide suggest a title and outline | The structure of your paper | Disclose it if your policy covers any AI assistance |
| Let the guide draft parts of the text | The text you hand in | If your policy allows it, say which parts and how you revised them; if not, don’t |
| Proofread or rephrase your own text | The wording, not the ideas | Ask first: some policies treat it as proofreading, others as AI use |
| Revise with quizzes, flashcards or a concept map | Your preparation, not your submission | Usually nothing to disclose, since you don’t hand it in; during an exam, only if it’s allowed |
The Process report: what it shows and what it doesn’t
The Process report in Guided writing records how much of the paper you wrote, who wrote each part (typed by you, pasted by you, edited from the guide’s text, or straight from the guide) and how the work was done: over how many days, with how many messages and edits.
It measures what happened in the editor: it does not certify that no AI was used. Nor can it see what happens outside Aithor.io: if you paste text in, the report counts it as pasted rather than typed, but it can’t tell where that text came from.
Free: the Process report is shown in the editor, no download or link for your teacher. With Aithor Pro: Process report in Word and a link for your teacher.
Why isn’t a detector enough? Because detectors get it wrong. An evaluation of 14 detection tools concluded that they are neither accurate nor reliable [2], and another study found they flag writing by non-native English speakers as AI-generated more often [3]. Showing how you worked tells your lecturer more than arguing over a percentage. There is more detail on the Process report.
Real sources, and their limits
Guided writing cites real academic sources from OpenAlex and Crossref. Even so, a citation may not say exactly what the sentence attributes to it. In internal testing, citations not supported by their source fell from 22% to 16%: it does not promise zero errors.
With Aithor Pro, Check against the source gives the exact sentence and page for each citation, only for articles with an open-access PDF (OpenAlex or Unpaywall). If the article isn’t open access, the checking is up to you; verifying citations also has a manual method.
The humanizer and the detector
Aithor.io has a humanizer, which rewrites text so it reads more naturally, and an AI detector, which estimates which parts of a text look machine-generated. Both have limits worth knowing:
- The humanizer improves how natural a text reads. It doesn’t guarantee what a detector will say, whether ours or your university’s. Don’t use it to hide AI use on an assignment where AI isn’t allowed, and if your policy asks you to disclose AI, mention that you used it for rewriting too.
- The detector estimates; it doesn’t prove anything. It gives an estimated share of AI text and explains it sentence by sentence, with the signals behind it, but no accuracy figure. A high or low score doesn’t show who wrote a text.
Study downloads are labelled
What you download from Study (presentation, podcast, video and infographic) carries metadata marking it as AI-generated. That way the file itself records that it is AI-generated content. If you present one of these in class, say how you made it.
If something doesn’t add up
If your university asks how an Aithor.io tool works, or you think something on this page doesn’t match what the app does, email us at hello@aithor.io. How we write and review these pages is explained in our editorial policy.
Frequently asked questions
Is using Aithor.io cheating?
It depends on your university's rules and on how you use it. Many policies allow AI for finding sources, organising ideas or revising. Submitting text you didn't write as your own, where disclosure is required, breaks both your university's rules and our terms.
Can I show the Process report to my lecturer as evidence?
It shows how you worked, how much you wrote, what came from the guide and how you edited it. It does not certify that no AI was used, and how much weight it carries is up to your institution's rules.
Will the humanizer stop a detector flagging my text?
There is no guarantee. No tool can promise what a detector will say, and using the humanizer to hide AI use where it isn't allowed breaks our terms.
Do I need to mention Aithor.io in my assignment?
If your rules ask you to disclose AI tools, yes, including what you used and for what. The works you read are always cited by their authors, never by the tool that helped you find them.
Related
Sources
- Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO (2023). doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
- Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity (2023). doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
- GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns (2023). doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779