Updated in August 2026: What Has Changed Since the End of the Transition Period. Reviewed and updated on September 22, 2026.
AI checks at higher education institutions after July 31, 2026, should be considered within the framework of the academic integrity system. Law of Ukraine No. 4742-IX “On Academic Integrity” has already been implemented. Universities, faculty members, and authors of scholarly works are now subject to transparent rules, proper review of their work, and a clear procedure for addressing violations.
Below is a breakdown of what higher education institutions must provide, how faculty and graduate students should proceed, and how to assess the risks associated with the use of AI. The obligation to verify academic integrity does not imply automatic punishment based on an AI detector’s results.
What Will Take Effect After July 31, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Law No. 4742-IX took effect. This date is confirmed by NAZYAO announcement regarding the enactment of the law. The grace period has ended: institutions must ensure that their internal rules and procedures are followed, and those involved in academic activities must comply with them.
The correct title of the document is — The Law "On Academic Integrity", rather than a separate “AI law.” It also covers authorship, citation, data reliability, evaluation, and liability for violations. Article 8 regulates the disclosure of the use of generated works; Article 29 addresses the misuse of AI-generated results.
Special transitional provisions in Section VI apply to past work: the requirements and liabilities cannot be mechanically applied to previous defenses. Nor does the effective date of the Act imply the automatic imposition of sanctions without due process.
The Use of AI: The Current Situation, Risks, and the Right Course of Action
The steps listed below are practical recommendations for mitigating risks. Whether the use of AI is permissible depends on the nature of the work, the terms of the assignment, and the policies of the institution or publisher. The legal basis is— Articles 7–8, 29, and 31 of Law No. 4742-IX.
| Situation | Risk | The Correct Action |
|---|---|---|
| The AI proposed a work structure | Substitution of one's own logic; use of unauthorized assistance | Review the rules for the assignment, independently justify the structure, and explain the application of the tool in the cases specified by the rules. |
| AI was used for the translation | Distortion of terms and quotations; concealment of the source of the translated text | Compare the translation with the original, cite the source, and explain the use of AI in accordance with the assignment requirements. |
| The AI generated a text snippet | Presenting a generated result as one's own; fabricated facts and references | Verify the admissibility, authenticity, and sources. If the excerpt has been used, report it in accordance with Section 4 of Article 8; remove any unauthorized excerpts. |
| AI is used for data analysis | Erroneous calculations, irreproducibility, fabrication, or falsification of results | Save the raw data and code, verify the method and calculations, and describe the role of AI. Do not present synthetic data as if it were actually collected. |
What a teacher should do
Articles 5 and 13 of the Law They expect instructors to set clear assignment requirements, provide transparent grading, verify the accuracy of information, and address violations.
- Explain the rules for completing the assignment. In the syllabus or course instructions, specify whether AI, translation, editing, code generation, or data analysis are permitted, and how to disclose their use.
- Assess the student's own contribution. Practical tools—draft versions, explanations of the methodology, oral discussions, and exercises using students' own data.
- Check your own work. References, facts, examples, and calculation results should be verified against reliable sources.
- Follow the procedure. Document specific signs of misconduct, give the student an opportunity to explain, and forward the materials to the appropriate person or body in accordance with internal regulations.
An AI detector's assessment does not replace a well-reasoned decision. The scope of a faculty member's authority and the procedure for responding to violations by students are determined by law and internal regulations, in particular with reference to Article 38.
What a graduate student or dissertation author should do
A graduate student or dissertation author is responsible for the accuracy of the results, their independent contribution, and the proper citation of sources. This follows from Articles 6–8 of the Law.
- Find out the current requirements of the higher education institution, the specialized council, and the journal regarding the use of AI and the formatting of the corresponding submission.
- If your work uses a generated object, please indicate this in the work: specify the generation method and/or the program or its description in accordance with the established requirements (Section 4 of Article 8).
- Check every source, quote, number, translation, and conclusion. Fabricated references and data must be removed, not disguised by paraphrasing.
- As practical evidence of your work process, keep drafts, raw data, code, change logs, and records of AI usage.
- Have your work reviewed in accordance with the institution's procedures before submitting it. Article 16 requires the review of academic works on the basis of which, or in light of which, a degree is awarded.
Disclosing the use of AI does not waive the requirements for independent work and does not justify using unauthorized methods to complete the assignment. Additionally: AI in Theses: What Is Allowed and How It Is Verified and Filing an AI Declaration. The requirements for a PhD and a Doctor of Science degree should be checked separately.
What Higher Education Institutions Are Required to Provide
Article 12 of the Law requires the institution to have an internal academic integrity system, to publish the relevant policies, and to ensure that the system functions properly. In practice, the administration must review six areas:
- Regulations on Academic Integrity. Current policies, types of violations, response measures, and safeguards for participants' rights.
- Rules for Using AI. Permitted methods of assistance, prohibitions for specific tasks, and requirements for disclosing the tools used. These may be set forth in the relevant internal regulations; the law does not specify a universal title for such a document.
- Procedure for Checking Work. Which works are inspected, who analyzes the results, how are the findings documented, and how are technical reports distinguished from established facts of violations?
- Responsible Persons and Authorized Body. Clear authority, points of contact, accountability, and conflict-of-interest policies. A contact person for consultations does not replace the body responsible for making decisions.
- Reports, complaints, and appeals. Submission channel, mandatory registration, deadlines, access to materials, the right to provide an explanation, and the appeal process.
- Informing students and staff. Rules are available on the website, along with academic writing tutorials and explanations of assignment requirements.
Part 3 of Article 12 provides for the coordination of policies, measures, and procedures concerning applicants with the higher body of their self-government, if any; at higher education institutions—also with the academic association of students, graduate students, doctoral candidates, and young scholars. Specific internal documents must comply with the law.
How to Set Up an AI and Plagiarism Check
Articles 12 and 16 of the Law establish obligations to check academic works for signs of plagiarism. The law does not limit this check to a single service and does not specify a particular AI detector as mandatory for all higher education institutions.
It is advisable to combine several methods of analysis:
| Verification Method | What it helps you figure out |
|---|---|
| Checking for Text Matches | Where are the borrowings, and are the citations properly formatted? The coincidence itself still requires an analysis of the context. |
| AI Indicator Detection Tool | Which parts require additional attention? The result does not replace the establishment of the fact of a violation. |
| Expert Analysis | Are there any sources? Are the data, methodology, and conclusions accurate? Is the use of AI disclosed? |
| Discussions with the author and review of drafts | How were the results obtained, and what is the personal contribution? |
Before choosing a service, check its language support, data processing terms, and whether it offers expert review of the specified text segments. A report on text matches and an assessment of likely AI generation address different questions.
Practical recommendation: Keep a copy of the verified work, the date, the report, and the written conclusion of the responsible specialist. A decision regarding a violation must be based on the evidence examined and the procedure provided for Article 37 of the Law, rather than just the percentage in the report.
How Reports and Complaints Are Handled
First, you need to determine the subject of the inquiry and the competent authority. The general procedure for handling reports is established by Article 37 of the Law: A person has the right to be informed of the proceedings, to review the case materials, to provide explanations and objections, to participate in the examination of evidence, and to appeal the decision.
For academic plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification in works for which a degree has already been awarded or a title conferred, a special procedure under Article 40 applies. Reports shall be submitted to the institution that awarded the degree or conferred the title, or to its legal successor. In the absence of a legal successor, the law provides for an appeal to the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAZYAO) to determine which institution will review the report.
Article 40 establishes a six-month review period. Appeals to the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAZYAO) regarding decisions on academic degrees, Doctor of Arts degrees, or academic titles, as well as related inaction, are subject to specific conditions and a 30-day deadline. This mechanism should not be applied to any student grade or any complaint regarding AI.
NAZYAWO published explanations and references to the recommended Model Procedure for Reviewing Notifications. Article 39 sets forth specific rules regarding reports on the heads of institutions.
What are the possible consequences for the author and the institution?
For the improper use of AI results Article 29 of the Law provides for penalties specified in internal regulations or the terms of the competition, unless otherwise provided by law. This does not mean automatic dismissal simply for using AI.
Academic plagiarism, misattribution or misrepresentation of authorship, fabrication, and falsification are distinct types of violations with different legal consequences. The classification of the violation, the evidence, the individual’s status, and due process determine what measures may be applied.
For an institution, inaction regarding the integrity system and the unjustified disregard of reports may constitute institutional violations under Article 35. Article 40 sets forth specific consequences for specialized councils and the right to award degrees. The statement “once the deadline passes, the university automatically loses its accreditation or license” does not accurately describe the procedure prescribed by law.
What to Do Now: From Rules to Performance Checks
After July 31, 2026, the administration must ensure that internal regulations are followed; instructors must explain the requirements and evaluate assignments fairly; and authors must confirm their own contributions and transparently disclose the use of AI.
Do you need a review before submission or publication? Contact the Article Academy to arrange for a review of your academic work for AI-related risks and plagiarism. Such an analysis helps identify problem areas but does not replace the decision of the higher education institution or a specialized committee.
Check a research paper for AI and plagiarism risks
Primary sources: Law of Ukraine No. 4742-IX; NOTE: Enactment of the Law and Model Procedures; NAZYAO informational and educational materials and the webinar held on August 28, 2026.
