At the University of Saskatchewan, the answer depends on your graduate program. The College of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (CGPS) framework on generative AI, a draft dated November 21, 2023, hands the decision to each program, and on November 9, 2026 we found no university-wide thesis rule beyond it. One program text we read, the Computer Science graduate policy, requires written permission by email from your supervisor before any GenAI use in thesis work, and disclosure in the thesis. If your program has published nothing, ask your supervisor before you use an AI tool on the thesis.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
The CGPS framework is a draft, and the key line sits inside a motion it proposes to the CGPS Faculty Council: “CGPS Council deems it the responsibility of programs to determine whether and how generative AI may be used by graduate students”. The framework treats a program's Program Guidelines as the thesis equivalent of a course syllabus, so that is where a program would state what is permitted in master's and doctoral research and thesis work.
The draft explains why it leaves the choice to programs: “There is not a one size fits all set of rules that will meet the needs of programs and students due to disciplinary differences in research, the types of AI available, and the regulations by publishers.” Because the decision sits with programs and supervisors, ask your supervisor first before you use Esmond, or any other AI tool, for this thesis.
A central rule from USask's ICT office also applies to university data. Its Data Handling Guidelines for AI, which start from all members of the university community, say: “Do not use Personal license services to process, store, or share university or third-party data as they lack the contracts or service agreements that safeguard ownership and control of university data.” The classification on the same page lists “Intellectual property - patent applications and drafts of research papers” as an example of Internal data. Whether your own thesis draft counts as university data is not settled by these texts. Ask your supervisor before you upload it to Esmond or any other tool USask has not approved.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour transparency statement lists a GenAI tool for outlining chapter 3, but your methodology says the same tool generated the test inputs for the evaluation in chapter 5. Is the second use in the statement too?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe draft offers programs sample wording for their guidelines. One version does not permit GenAI for generating text, code, illustrations, or creative work in thesis research, annual progress reports, or the thesis document, and treats any use as academic misconduct. Another permits GenAI during research and drafting, with the student responsible for checking every cited source and acknowledging the use. A third permits a named set of tools under conditions the program spells out.
These are templates. What binds you is the version your program actually adopted, if it adopted one. The same draft notes that misusing GenAI, or using it without proper acknowledgment, is an academic offense under the university's regulations on student academic misconduct.
The Computer Science graduate policy is the program text we read in full. Its rule for thesis work is explicit: “Prior to using any generative AI in thesis work, the student must seek unambiguous written permission (by email) from the supervisor(s).” For MSc students, the supervisor may also seek approval from the Advisory Committee.
The permission should state the types of use (searching, design, outlining, code, drafting, editing, or images and other content) and give an idea of the scale. If you plan more types of use later, the permission should be updated. Doctoral students also include a disclosure of current and planned GenAI use in the PhD proposal.
Once permission is in place, disclosure is the condition: “Generative AI tools can only be used providing they are disclosed either through a transparency statement included in the thesis, or listed as part of the description of the methodology of the research.”
The policy names Copilot through PAWS as the tool the university endorses, to be used without restricted data under the university's data classification. Uploading experimental human data to a tool the university has not endorsed can violate privacy, and using another researcher's data needs their permission or license.
| Stage or use | What the policy asks | What to have ready |
|---|---|---|
| Before any GenAI use in thesis work | Unambiguous written permission by email from your supervisor(s) | The email, naming the types of use and their scale |
| MSc students | Your supervisor may seek extra approval from the Advisory Committee | The committee's reply, if one was asked for |
| PhD proposal | A disclosure of GenAI use and planned use | A paragraph in the proposal itself |
| Text in the thesis, committee reports, proposals | Permitted, with a transparency statement | The statement, listing types and scale of use |
| Illustrations, audio, video | Described in a transparency statement or the methodology | A line per figure or file produced with a tool |
| Research data | Comply with the Data Management Policy, the Human Research Ethics Policy, and your ethics approval | A note on which data went into which tool |
The Computer Science policy expects you to verify every source you used while researching background, to understand the biases of training data, and to answer questions about it. It warns that students who rely heavily on software for their documents may not be able to defend the work as rigorously as students who drafted it themselves.
It closes one door in advance: “Students may not cite reliance on GenAI as a basis for appeal if it is determined that they failed to adequately defend their thesis.” Contravening the guidelines constitutes academic misconduct, according to the same page.
We read only the Computer Science text closely; other USask programs may have their own. Look first in your program's Program Guidelines or graduate handbook, then ask your graduate chair or program coordinator. Course rules come from each course syllabus and do not settle the thesis question. If you find nothing in writing, ask your supervisor before you use an AI tool on the thesis, and keep the answer by email, as the Computer Science policy does.
One more program text we found works differently. The Department of Chemistry's guidelines of November 2024 permit select GenAI tools for gathering information and drafting text, with disclosure, and name the approved applications. Esmond is not on that list, so Chemistry students should not upload a thesis draft to Esmond.
This example is made up. An MSc student in computer science asks his supervisor by email in October for permission to use a GenAI tool to generate routine code for a benchmarking script, and gets a clear yes. In February he asks the same tool to suggest a structure for his related-work chapter and to tighten several paragraphs. The October email covers code only. Under the department's policy, outlining and editing are separate types of use, so the permission should have been updated before February, and the transparency statement has to name both uses and their scale.
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 your thesis draft, judged from within your field, and points out factual errors, inconsistencies, and blind spots. You can read how Esmond works and see a sample report. At USask the decision belongs to your program and supervisor, so ask your supervisor before you upload a draft. In Chemistry, where Esmond is not among the approved applications, don't upload. Esmond has no agreement with USask, so ask in the same email whether your draft counts as university data under ICT's guidelines. In Computer Science that means an email permission that names the use, and the review then belongs in your transparency statement. If your program's guidelines are silent, the same request by email gives you a record. Check the Privacy Notice against your program's data rules before you upload. The University of Saskatchewan has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
We found no university-wide ban. The CGPS draft framework leaves the decision to each graduate program, and its templates include both a version that does not permit GenAI and versions that permit it. Check your own program.
The document we read is marked as a draft dated November 21, 2023. Treat it as the college's direction, and your program's guidelines as the rule that applies to you.
Not in Computer Science. Its policy says reliance on GenAI cannot be cited as a basis for appeal if you failed to adequately defend your thesis.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit