Yes, within limits the Graduate School sets out in Appendix A of its Formatting Manual (revised February 2026). AI may help you edit text you produced yourself, and it may not create the content of the thesis or dissertation. If you use any AI tool, you sign an AI use agreement, your faculty advisor reviews it, and it goes into an appendix of the final document. Appendix A does not mention feedback on a draft, so ask your advisor whether that kind of use counts as permitted before you start. Your discipline and department can add their own norms.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
The Texas Tech Graduate School publishes its AI rule for theses and dissertations as Appendix A of the Thesis-Dissertation Formatting Guidelines. The manual is dated February 2026 and is listed on the Graduate School's forms page next to a separate AI Use Agreement. It sets six guidelines.
The first says AI cannot be an author or co-author, and that you may not use a tool to produce the thesis text or to rework it substantially. The manual sums it up in one line: “In summary, AI may be used only to edit content, not create it.”
The other five cover data, sources and responsibility. A tool may help with reduction, summarization and analysis of data and with building models, but it may not draw conclusions about the data or state their implications. Anything a tool produces for a literature review has to be checked against the original source. Use must follow the norms of your discipline and department, and faculty advisors are the ones who teach those norms. The sixth guideline brings in the agreement described below.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour chapter 4 declaration lists a tool for grammar only, yet the discussion opens with two sentences on policy implications that do not follow from the coefficients in Table 4.2. Where did that reading of the results come from?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewAppendix A draws its line between editing what you produced and creating new content. Evaluative feedback, such as a report that a claim lacks a source or that two sections contradict each other, is not named in the manual, and guideline 4 ties every use to the norms of your field and department.
So the question goes to your advisor before you use such a tool: does feedback on a draft count as permitted use in this department, and how should it be recorded? Two cases are clear from the text. Placing sentences a tool suggested in a chapter moves toward creating content. Asking a tool what your results mean is excluded by guideline 2.
| Use | What Appendix A says | What to have ready |
|---|---|---|
| Grammar, spelling, clarity in your own text | Editing is the use the manual allows | The tool and chapters listed in your agreement |
| Feedback that flags errors or gaps in a draft | Not named; depends on department norms | Your advisor's answer, in writing if possible |
| Summaries of articles for the literature review | Allowed if verified against each source | The original articles you checked |
| Data reduction, analysis, models | Allowed as assistance | A record of the tool and the steps it ran |
| Interpreting results, stating implications | Not allowed | Your own reasoning for each conclusion |
| Drafting or substantially reworking chapters | Not allowed | Keep this work out of any tool |
The sixth guideline reads: “Students using AI tools will create and sign an AI use agreement (see template below) which will be reviewed by their faculty advisor and included with the final document in an appendix for transparency.” The manual's AI Guidance section adds that the agreement has to be submitted with the thesis or dissertation whenever AI tools were used in preparing it.
The template asks for the title, the author, the advisor or advisors and any chapter co-authors, who must also sign. It lists ethical commitments: AI-assisted text is flagged for review, nothing AI-generated goes in without human checking, every reference is checked by hand, and no tool draws conclusions from data. A table names each program and its purpose, and the authors commit to a final review without AI before submission.
Disclosure then happens in two places. The signed agreement goes in the appendix. Under the heading of every chapter where AI was used, a fixed declaration names the programs and the purposes, followed by a statement that the authors reviewed the content and take full responsibility for it. The template also asks you to keep your own record of AI use.
Appendix A includes a set of warnings about what happens to material you give a tool. Ideas entered into a generative tool are uploaded to the company and can be stored, reviewed and used to train later models, and confidentiality is only protected under a research-secure or enterprise license with firewalls. The manual notes that this can affect copyright, trademark or patent rights.
Two consequences are stated as requirements: tools used for data analysis must keep the data on TTU servers, and sharing details of human subject data with a tool may violate IRB rules unless the tool is approved under the project's IRB protocol. For a draft with unpublished findings, weigh these warnings with your advisor before you upload anything.
If a concern about AI use comes up, the manual describes three steps: the author and advisor discuss it and agree on revisions, they seek guidance from the Graduate Writing Center or the Graduate School if needed, and they check compliance with publishing and institutional rules.
The consequences are stated plainly: “Breaches of the AI use guidelines will result in appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, rejection of a submitted thesis/dissertation by the Graduate School or revocation of an awarded degree.” The agreement template repeats this, and adds that it applies if a breach is discovered at any time.
This example is made up. A doctoral student in agricultural economics uses a grammar tool on chapters 2 and 3. She names it in her AI use agreement and adds the declaration under both chapter headings. Later, short on time, she asks a chatbot what her regression results mean for farm credit policy and keeps two of its sentences in the chapter 4 discussion. Chapter 4 carries no declaration. The grammar use matches what Appendix A allows. The second use is the one guideline 2 excludes, and it left no trace in the agreement her advisor reviewed.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond reads a draft and evaluates its content from within your field: it points out factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots, and leaves every change to you. See how Esmond works and a sample report. Appendix A does not say whether evaluative feedback counts as editing, so ask your advisor first whether this use is permitted for your thesis or dissertation. If your advisor agrees, list Esmond in your AI use agreement with what you used it for, and add the declaration under each chapter you had reviewed. Keep the manual's confidentiality warnings in mind for chapters with unpublished findings, and see whether you can use Esmond for the general question. Texas Tech has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
No. Appendix A of the Formatting Manual allows AI tools for editing and some data work, and excludes using them to create content or to interpret results. Your department's norms apply on top of that.
The manual says students using AI tools sign the agreement, and that it is submitted whenever AI tools were used. Ask your advisor if you are unsure whether a tool counts.
Appendix A does not mention feedback. Ask your advisor whether it counts as permitted use in your department, and record it in the agreement if they agree.
The manual says breaches lead to sanctions that can include rejection of the thesis or dissertation by the Graduate School or revocation of the degree.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit