Artificial Intelligence

Transparency is one of the most important considerations when using AI tools for academic work. Most generative AI systems are trained on massive datasets that draw from a wide range of sources, but these sources are not disclosed to the user. Without clear information about where the AI is pulling from, we cannot know whether the underlying material is peer-reviewed, outdated, biased, or even reliable. Because of this lack of source transparency, we need to be transparent about when and how we've have used generative AI. Making this visible in your work not only protects your academic integrity but also helps others understand the role AI played in your process.

Attribution is equally vital. Academic integrity rests on acknowledging where ideas come from, and AI-generated text can blur that responsibility. Because the system does not provide citations, there is a risk that we might unintentionally present AI outputs as original work. Even when AI generates a polished explanation or phrasing, it is still shaped by data and patterns from other sources. Failing to disclose this use undermines the traditions of academic honesty and respect for intellectual contributions.

To use AI responsibly, students should disclose when and how they have incorporated AI into their work: whether in brainstorming, outlining, summarizing, or drafting. This kind of transparency protects us from unintentional plagiarism, and it helps others understand our process, making our work stronger and more credible. Just as you would cite a book, article, or website, attribution signals that you are building knowledge with integrity.

For graduate students at the University of Calgary, there are specific graduate AI guidelines to become familiar with. 

Please Note: Citation practices for AI are still evolving, and each style guide is updating its standards. For the most accurate and current guidance, consult the official style manual, your instructor, or a librarian.

Because expectations for transparency can vary across courses and disciplines, it is helpful to include a clear statement when you have used generative AI in your academic work. The following examples and template illustrate formal ways to acknowledge AI assistance while emphasizing your own responsibility for the final product.

• “Portions of this assignment were developed with the assistance of ChatGPT, which was used to generate potential essay topics. The final topic selection, research, and analysis were conducted independently by the author.”
• “An initial outline for this paper was generated using Microsoft Copilot. The outline was subsequently revised and expanded by the author to align with course objectives and academic standards.”
• “Gemini was consulted to produce preliminary summaries of selected research articles. These summaries were cross-checked against the original texts and edited by the author prior to incorporation into the literature review.”

Some general templates you can adapt for your own work is:

• “This work incorporates generative AI assistance (Microsoft Copilot) in [specific task: brainstorming, outlining, summarizing]. All outputs were reviewed, verified, and revised by the author to ensure accuracy, integrity, and alignment with academic standards.”
• “Generative AI (ChatGPT) was consulted to support [specific task, e.g., drafting research questions]. The final content, analysis, and conclusions are the responsibility of the author.”
• “AI assistance was used in [specific task: summarizing articles, generating examples]. All outputs were critically evaluated, edited, and integrated by the author to ensure accuracy and originality.”
• “This assignment reflects independent work by the author. Generative AI was used solely for [specific task], and all substantive ideas, interpretations, and arguments were developed by the author.” 
• This assignment was written with the help of ChatGPT, prompting the generative AI to (insert prompt here, such as "act as an editor"). All content was reviewed, edited, and refined by (your name), who bears full responsibility for its accuracy and originality.

The AID framework (Authorship, Integrity, Disclosure) offers guidance for responsibly acknowledging the use of generative AI in academic work. It emphasizes that authorship remains with the student, outputs must be verified for integrity, and AI’s role should be disclosed when it meaningfully shapes the work. While the framework may not apply to every assignment, it provides a practical way to ensure transparency and accountability in many academic contexts.

The framework was created by Dr. Kari Weaver at the University of Waterloo. To view more information about it, please visit her Attribution and the AID framework page on the University of Waterloo's research guide. 

Reference Citation: 

When you incorporate AI-generated content into your academic work, cite the AI tool in a similar format to software. This includes:

• Author: The company or creator of the AI tool (e.g., OpenAI, Microsoft)
• Year of Release: The version release year
• Title: The name of the AI tool and version information (if available), followed by a descriptor like “[Large language model]”
• URL: A direct link to the tool or its platform
• For example:
  • OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com

In-Text Citation: 

Use the author (organization) and year in parentheses. If you have multiple entries from the same author and year, use letters (a, b, etc.) to differentiate:

• Example: (OpenAI, 2023a)

Additional Transparency (Recommended Practice)

Although not always required by APA style, it's considered good practice to be transparent about your use of AI tools:

• Include your exact prompt and its AI-generated response in an appendix, so others can see the context and review the text for accuracy or bias.
• In the main text, you can refer to the AI output and direct readers to the appendix for details (e.g., “See Appendix A for full AI-generated transcript”).

The Chicago Manual of Style editors have released a Q&A post on referencing AI-generated text to cite AI tools like ChatGPT within the text or in footnotes, but notes "don’t cite ChatGPT in a bibliography or reference list unless you provide a publicly available link." 

Example: 

Footnote: Note number. AI tool used, Month Day, Year, Creator of tool, URL.

• Numbered Footnote with shareable URL:  1. Text generated using ChatGPT, August 22, 2023, OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com/share/728391fh1dk 
• Numbered Footnote (when prompt is written in text):  1. Text generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI, August 22, 2023, https://chat.openai.com/chat. 
• Numbered Footnote (when prompt is not mentioned in text): 1. Text generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI, August 22, 2023, https://chat.openai.com/chat.

In-text Author-Date Example: 

In-text citation - narrative (author-prominent):

• Rule: Author (year)
• Example: ChatGPT (2023) or Bard (2023)

In-text citation - parenthetical (information-prominent):

• Rule: (Author year)
• Example: (ChatGPT 2023) or (Bard 2023)

Reference list entry example - shareable URL generated by the AI tool:

• Rule: Author. Year. Name of tool. Version (if available). Month Day, Year. URL
• Example: OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. May 24 version.  August 22, 2023. https://chat.openai.com/share/71hs37shfak82s 

Vancouver Style, also known as ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) or Uniform Requirements, is widely used in the health and biomedical sciences. The ICMJE provides guidance through its Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (formerly the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts). While Vancouver Style does not yet include official guidance on citing AI-generated content, the most relevant existing recommendations are those for personal communications and software, depending on context.

The International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has released guidance on the use of generative AI tools in scholarly work published in medical journals. The advice is that AI tools should not be listed or cited as authors, and that the use of AI tools needs to be acknowledged.

McMasters University Library Research Guide: How Do I Cite Generative AI? has examples of citing AI models, citing AI outputs, and citing AI images as software and communications. Thank you to McMasters Librarians for this resource. 

MLA now provides guidance for citing AI tools like ChatGPT. Include the tool name, version or date of access, and a description of the content generated.

Examples:

• ChatGPT. “Explain the causes of the French Revolution.” ChatGPT, OpenAI, 5 Sept. 2025, https://chat.openai.com.

• ChatGPT. “Create a sample MLA citation for an AI-generated response.” ChatGPT, OpenAI, 5 Sept. 2025.

• DALL·E. “Generate an image of a sustainable city.” DALL·E, OpenAI, 5 Sept. 2025, https://openai.com/dall-e.

These examples come from the How do I cite generative AI in MLA style? (Updated and Revised) blog article from MLA in August 2025.

For full guidance and for your specific citing case, please visit: MLA – Citing Generative AI (revised and updated) 

The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, commonly pronounced "I-triple-E") Editorial Style Manual provides guidelines regarding editorial styles, mathematical equations, and references. Visit the IEEE Author Center to access the IEEE Editorial Style Manual and accompanying IEEE Mathematics Guide and IEEE Reference Guide (free, PDF formats).

The IEEE Editorial Style Manual for Authors (version last updated 25 March 2025) indicates the following:

The use of content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in an article (including but not limited to text, figures, images, and code) shall be disclosed in the acknowledgments section of any article submitted to an IEEE publication. The AI system used shall be identified, and specific sections of the article that use AI-generated content shall be identified and accompanied by a brief explanation regarding the level at which the AI system was used to generate the content. The use of AI systems for editing and grammar enhancement is common practice and, as such, is generally outside the intent of the above policy. In this case, disclosure as noted above is recommended.

The IEEE Author Center recommends consulting the Chicago Manual of Style for guidance for any usage not included in the IEEE Editorial Style Manual.

Here are a few other university's pages on IEEE guidance with AI use. 

• McMaster University IEEE guidance 
• Victoria University IEEE guidance (Australia) 
• University of Waterloo IEEE guidance
• RMIT University Australia guidance (examples provided)