Loughborough 2026 Policy on Paraphrasing and Translation Tools: Misconduct and Proofreading Limits

Under Loughborough University's Regulation XVIII (version effective from 1 August 2026), unauthorized or unacknowledged use of paraphrasing software, translation tools, or other computer assistance is explicitly defined as academic misconduct alongside Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) whenever the assistance means the submitted work—including referencing—cannot be considered wholly the student's own. In the same regulation, the university defines the boundary for third-party copy-editing and proofreading: when amendments made to a student's draft are so substantial that the work is no longer the student's own, the assistance crosses into contract cheating.

This regulatory framework does not judge software by marketing labels or by whether an application brands itself as a "grammar checker," "paraphraser," or "translation assistant." Instead, Loughborough applies two substantive criteria: first, whether the assistance was specifically authorized by the module leader or assessment brief and transparently declared; and second, whether the submitted draft—including its citations and academic argument—remains entirely the student's independent intellectual product.

Students navigating these rules should never assume that an automated rewriting or translation tool is automatically permissible, nor should they treat proofreading as an unlimited license for substantive text revision. The sections below outline the precise wording of Regulation XVIII, the historical comparison with earlier revisions, the formal distinction between proofreading and contract cheating, and practical compliance steps.

Loughborough University governs student discipline and academic integrity through formal university regulations. Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct) sets out the definitions, investigation procedures, and penalties for academic dishonesty.

In the version effective from 1 August 2026 (retrieved 2 October 2026 from the university's governance website), paragraph 2 establishes the categories of academic misconduct. Among these, the university introduces a specific clause governing automated tools and generative software:

"Unauthorised or unacknowledged use of Generative Artificial Intelligence(GenAI) or other computer assistance – this includes any unauthorised or unacknowledged use of GenAI, paraphrasing/translation software, or other computer assistance such that the work submitted, including referencing, cannot be considered wholly the student’s own."

This formulation establishes several important boundaries:

1. Paraphrasing and translation tools are grouped directly with GenAI: Rather than treating machine translation or sentence paraphrasers as neutral assistive utilities, the regulation places them in the same regulatory category as generative models whenever they alter the text without authorization or declaration.
2. Referencing is explicitly included in the authorship requirement: The phrase "including referencing" indicates that academic citations, source selection, and bibliographies are evaluated under the same authorship standards. Generating or reformatting citations through automated tools without approval or disclosure falls directly under the scope of this rule.
3. The dual test of authorization and acknowledgement: The policy does not simply prohibit tools outright across all university contexts; it targets use that is "unauthorised or unacknowledged" where the resulting submission cannot be considered wholly the student's own. If a course module does not grant permission to use an automated rewriting tool, using it violates the authorization requirement. If an assignment allows tool assistance but the student fails to declare it, that omission violates the acknowledgement requirement.

Understanding Loughborough's phrasing requires examining how the regulatory text evolved between academic years.

An archived snapshot from 21 April 2026 on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine records Loughborough's previous regulatory document: "(Version effective from 1 August 2023)". In that 2023 version of Regulation XVIII:

• The term "GenAI" did not appear anywhere in the regulation.
• The term "Generative Artificial Intelligence" did not appear in the text.
• The phrase "paraphrasing/translation software, or other computer assistance" was absent from paragraph 2.

The addition of paraphrasing and translation software alongside GenAI represents a textual expansion introduced in the 1 August 2026 revision, ensuring that automated rewriting and translation tools are expressly named alongside generative models rather than left to interpretation under general academic integrity rules.

This observation is strictly an institutional version comparison between Loughborough's own successive regulatory documents. It should not be interpreted as evidence of an identical universal trend or a single synchronized date across all UK higher education institutions. British universities maintain independent governance charters, revise academic codes on independent schedules, and adopt distinct phrasing. While many institutions have updated integrity policies regarding artificial intelligence, Loughborough's specific grouping of paraphrasing software within Regulation XVIII reflects its own regulatory approach.

In addition to regulating automated software, Loughborough University addresses human and digital third-party assistance across two distinct governance documents: Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct) and the university's official Taught Student Policy Guidance Note for Proofreading Written Work.

Regulation XVIII defines contract cheating not only as purchasing bespoke essays from commercial essay mills, but also extends the category to over-edited student drafts:

"Contract cheating may also occur where a student arranges to have their work copy-edited or proof-read ... and the amendments made are so substantial that the work can no longer be considered to be the student’s own."

While Regulation XVIII sets the threshold where excessive assistance becomes misconduct, Loughborough's detailed operational definition of acceptable practice is set out in its Guidance Note for Proofreading Written Work. That document defines proofreading as:

"the systematic checking for and identification of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence construction, formatting and layout"

Crucially, the university specifies that this checking must take place "without changing the substance, argument or intended meaning." Unlike narrow informal definitions that exclude sentence structure entirely, Loughborough's guidance explicitly includes checking sentence construction, provided the checker identifies issues rather than rewriting the text for the author.

The Guidance Note establishes three direct rules that answer how both human helpers and digital utilities may be used:

1. Digital tools are not permitted by default: The guidance explicitly states: "If not mentioned, students should assume use is not permitted." Students cannot assume that automated writing or editing assistants are allowed simply because an assignment brief does not explicitly name them.
2. First-language translation does not count as proofreading: The guidance rules: "Electronic translation tools … which take work written in a first language and convert some or all of the work into English may not be used as part of proofreading practice." Drafting in another language and running the text through an electronic translator to generate English prose falls outside permissible proofreading.
3. Substantial AI rewriting exceeds proofreading: The policy instructs: "Using generative AI to substantially rewrite or rephrase sentences or paragraphs, even where the original meaning is retained … goes beyond proofreading." Unless the assessment brief explicitly authorizes such AI-assisted rewriting, running text through automated tools to generate rephrased sentences exceeds permitted proofreading and risks breaching Regulation XVIII if unauthorized or unacknowledged.

This institutional boundary between identifying errors and generating text reflects a broader pattern across higher education. For an analysis of what UK universities' third-party editing and coursework rules say about rewriting tools, university regulations consistently differentiate between checking surface errors and producing substantive rewrites. At Loughborough, whether editing is performed by a human proofreader or by software, the core compliance test is whether the tool was authorized by the assessment brief, whether its use was declared, and whether the final submission remains wholly the student's own.

Because Regulation XVIII anchors its standard in whether tool use was "unauthorised or unacknowledged" and whether the work remains "wholly the student's own," students cannot rely on general assumptions about third-party tools. To maintain academic compliance, students should follow four practical steps:

1. Verify specific module handbooks and assessment briefs: Institutional regulations establish the overarching framework, but individual departments and module leaders determine what technologies are permitted for each specific assignment, in accordance with the university's generative AI guidance. Always check the written assessment brief and course syllabus before utilizing any writing assistant.
2. Do not rely on commercial software marketing: Commercial SaaS platforms often claim their rewriting or proofreading tools are "safe for university students" or designed for academic integrity. No software vendor has the authority to grant permission on behalf of Loughborough University or any specific course tutor. The only authority that determines whether a tool is allowed is your module specification and assessment brief.
3. Follow required acknowledgement procedures: If your module permits the use of translation software or proofreading aids, ensure that you provide a complete, transparent declaration according to university and departmental guidance. An acknowledgement should typically specify the name of the tool, the version used, the exact stage of writing in which it was employed, and a clear statement confirming that all ideas, research, and analysis remain entirely your own.
4. Preserve drafts, version history, and prompts: Loughborough's guidance emphasizes retaining draft records and prompt histories. When writing coursework, keep timestamped drafts, document version histories (such as Microsoft Word Version History or Google Docs edit logs), and research notes. If an instructor or academic integrity officer ever reviews a submission, a continuous drafting record and copies of any authorized prompts demonstrate that the work was independently developed.

Does Loughborough University ban all translation software completely? No. Regulation XVIII does not impose a blanket ban across every academic context; it specifically targets "unauthorised or unacknowledged use" where the assistance means the submitted work cannot be considered wholly the student's own. However, under Loughborough's Guidance Note for Proofreading Written Work, digital tools not explicitly mentioned in an assessment brief are assumed not to be permitted by default, and "electronic translation tools … which take work written in a first language and convert some or all of the work into English may not be used as part of proofreading practice." Translation tools may only be used when specifically permitted by the module leader or assessment brief and transparently acknowledged.

Can asking a friend to proofread my coursework be treated as contract cheating at Loughborough? Yes, under specific conditions. Under Loughborough's Guidance Note for Proofreading Written Work, acceptable proofreading is defined as "the systematic checking for and identification of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence construction, formatting and layout" without changing the substance, argument, or intended meaning. If a friend identifies errors in grammar or sentence construction for you to fix, that remains within acceptable proofreading. However, under Regulation XVIII, if a friend undertakes substantial rewrites on your behalf such that the amendments mean the work can no longer be considered your own, the assistance crosses into contract cheating.

Does using an automated tool to rephrase a single awkward sentence violate Regulation XVIII? It depends on your module instructions and whether the tool is authorized. Regulation XVIII applies to any computer assistance used without authorization or acknowledgement where the resulting work cannot be considered wholly the student's own. Furthermore, Loughborough's proofreading guidance notes that digital tools not mentioned in an assessment brief are assumed not permitted by default, and using generative AI to substantially rewrite or rephrase sentences goes beyond proofreading unless explicitly allowed. Check your assessment brief and tutor guidance before using rewriting assistants.

Are these paraphrasing rules identical at every UK university? No. While all accredited UK universities uphold rigorous standards against plagiarism and contract cheating, the specific wording of integrity policies varies widely between institutions. Loughborough's inclusion of paraphrasing and translation software within Regulation XVIII reflects an institutional revision effective from 1 August 2026, which should not be generalized to other universities.

Loughborough University. Regulation XVIII: Academic Misconduct. Version effective from 1 August 2026. Retrieved 2 October 2026. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/governance/regulations/18/

Loughborough University. Taught Student Policy Guidance Note for Proofreading Written Work. Retrieved 28 October 2026. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/students/handbook/assessments/coursework-feedback/proofreading/

Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Loughborough University Regulation XVIII (Version effective from 1 August 2023). Archived snapshot dated 21 April 2026. http://web.archive.org/web/20260421172307/https://www.lboro.ac.uk/governance/regulations/18/