Only with your advisory committee's permission. The UGA Graduate School's policy of January 18, 2024 treats generative AI in theses and dissertations as unauthorized assistance under the Academic Code of Honesty, unless members of your advisory committee authorize it for a defined scope. If they do, you describe the extent of the use in a statement within the thesis or dissertation. The Office of Research repeats the rule in its AI FAQ and adds that any use should be cited.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
The rule comes from the Graduate School. Its policy on generative AI in theses and dissertations, posted January 18, 2024, starts from the Graduate Bulletin: a master's thesis shows independent judgment, and a dissertation shows originality and independent thinking. The advisory committee has to evaluate the document as the student's individual effort. On that basis the policy classes generative AI in the thesis or dissertation as unauthorized assistance, with one exception: use that members of the advisory committee have specifically authorized, within the scope they approved.
The Office of Research Integrity and Safety restates the policy in its FAQ on AI in research. In answer to whether you can use GenAI to develop your thesis or dissertation, it says: “use of GenAI in theses and dissertations is considered unauthorized assistance according to the Academic Code of Honesty and is prohibited unless specifically authorized by members of the advisory committee for use within the approved scope.”
So the default at UGA is no. Ask your major professor and advisory committee first, before you use Esmond or any other AI tool for this thesis or dissertation, and agree on the scope.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour statement says the committee approved AI for language edits, and your results chapter describes a tool sorting the open survey answers into categories. Does the approved scope cover the second use, or does the statement need a line your committee has not yet seen?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe policy speaks of an approved scope without defining it. The scope is what your committee agrees to. A clear authorization answers these points:
| Point | What UGA's texts say | What to have in writing |
|---|---|---|
| Who authorizes | Members of the advisory committee | Which members agreed, and when |
| What is covered | Use within the approved scope | The tools and the tasks, named |
| Disclosure | A statement within the thesis or dissertation on the extent of use | Where the statement goes and what it lists |
| Citation | Any use clearly cited, naming the tool and how it was used | The citation style your committee expects |
| Responsibility | You confirm the accuracy of AI-generated material | Your own check of every claim and source |
Once a use is approved, two disclosure duties follow. The first comes from the Graduate School and is repeated in the FAQ: once your advisory committee has approved a use, you describe its extent in a statement within the thesis or dissertation. The policy does not prescribe a format, so agree on the place and the level of detail with your committee.
The second comes from the Office of Research and applies to research generally: “Any use of GenAI tools should be clearly cited, identifying the GenAI tool and describing how it was used to support the research and publication.” The FAQ adds that publishers and tool providers may have their own policies and citation wording, so check those too if you plan to publish from the thesis.
The Office of Research FAQ places responsibility for accuracy with the researcher. Content from AI tools can be inaccurate, biased, plagiarized or invented, and you are expected to verify all of it. The FAQ puts it this way: “Researchers must confirm the accuracy of all AI-generated materials and could be held responsible for research misconduct should fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism be contained within their materials.”
UGA's Guidance on Acceptable Use of AI, which the Provost approved on March 5, 2025, says the same for the whole university: “Users are accountable for their work, irrespective of the AI tools used.”
Two UGA texts draw lines around data. The Office of Research FAQ says sensitive or restricted data, as defined by UGA's information technology policy, may not be entered into AI tools without the university's express authorization. The Guidance on Acceptable Use of AI says that work on sensitive or restricted UGA data should only use AI tools acquired through the university's procurement process. For public data, or internal data you generate yourself, the FAQ says the current guidance sets no protection requirements.
Whether your own draft counts as sensitive or restricted UGA data is not settled by these texts. Ask your major professor before you upload it to Esmond or any tool the university has not acquired. If your thesis uses interview transcripts, health records or other protected data, check the data classification first, and raise it with your committee and the IRB where relevant.
The Department of Psychology published Guidelines on the Use of AI on October 4, 2024, with columns for researchers, students and instructors. For theses and dissertations it repeats the Graduate School rule and adds pointers from the American Psychological Association: AI use in a manuscript is cited, an AI tool cannot be an author, and authors remain responsible for accuracy. It applies the same Graduate School rule; it does not loosen it.
This example is made up. A doctoral student in ecology gets her advisory committee's written approval to use an AI tool to debug her R scripts. A year later, short on time, she uses the same tool to summarize forty papers into the literature table of chapter two. The first use sits within an approved scope. The second does not, because the committee never authorized it, and under the Graduate School policy that makes it unauthorized assistance. Her statement in the dissertation lists only the debugging, which makes the gap harder to explain.
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 evaluates the content of a draft from within your field and returns comments on factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots; see how Esmond works and the sample report. At UGA that still counts as generative AI in your thesis or dissertation, so ask your major professor and advisory committee before you use it, and only go ahead if they authorize it. If they do, keep the use within the scope they set, describe it in the statement within the document and cite it as the Office of Research asks. In the same conversation, ask whether your draft counts as sensitive or restricted data before you upload it. More on the general question in whether you can use Esmond. The University of Georgia has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
The Graduate School treats generative AI in theses and dissertations as unauthorized assistance unless members of your advisory committee authorize it within an approved scope. So it is prohibited by default and possible with permission.
Members of your advisory committee. Get the scope in writing, with the tools and tasks named.
Yes. The extent of use goes in a statement within the thesis or dissertation, and the Office of Research asks that any use be cited.
Some do. Psychology's guidelines repeat the Graduate School rule. Check your program handbook and ask your major professor.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit