Plagiarism and AI at UBC: how to see your Turnitin report before you submit

The short answer

At UBC you can often see your own Turnitin similarity report before you hand anything in — but only if your instructor has switched that on, and UBC publishes the exact setting they need to change. That makes it a reasonable, specific thing to ask for by name.

The second thing to know is about a tool that is not there. UBC decided in April 2023 not to enable Turnitin’s AI-detection feature, and has said so three times since. It was never switched on institution-wide.

Seeing your own Turnitin report

UBC’s Learning Technology Hub writes its Turnitin guide for instructors, which is useful for you, because it means the mechanism is published rather than folklore. Two settings do all the work:

“Set the number of allowed submission attempts. To let students use Turnitin’s reports to improve their own work, you will need to allow unlimited submissions.”

“Under ‘Show report to students’, choose when students can access the Turnitin report for their submission. If you are letting students use Turnitin to check their own work, select Immediately.”

UBC also publishes a use case with a named instructor doing this — “Xiaowen Xu uses Turnitin so students can self-check for plagiarism in the Chinese Language Program” — and its own framing of what the practice is for: “Turnitin can help students prevent basic forms of plagiarism when writing assignments, such as short analysis papers and final papers.”

So the ask is small and it has precedent. If your assignment does not already show you a report, you can write to your instructor and ask whether they would enable unlimited submissions and set the report to show immediately, as the LT Hub guide describes. Whether they do it is their call: self-check at UBC is per-assignment, at the instructor’s discretion, not a standing student service.

One caution about how to read what comes back. A similarity report is a matching report. It tells you where your text overlaps with something else — including your own correctly quoted and cited sources. A high number can be entirely innocent and a low number is not a clearance. If you want the longer version of that argument, see what a Turnitin score actually means.

The only centrally supported tool

UBC names its tool plainly, and says it is the only one:

“Turnitin is a plagiarism-prevention tool that helps you check the academic integrity of student writing.”

“Turnitin is the only centrally supported tool for checking potential plagiarism.”

It is delivered through Canvas, and a standalone account can be requested from the LT Hub. The guide states its own currency — “This tool guide was last reviewed in February 2025” — which is more than many institutions manage.

Two things UBC does not publish about it, and we are not going to supply either. There is no opt-out or alternative-submission rightpublished for the similarity checker; we could not establish one from UBC’s own pages. And UBC does not state where submissions are stored — whether the servers are Canadian or American is simply not addressed on the Turnitin pages. What the guide says on privacy is a single line: “Privacy — Yes — Complies with UBC’s privacy requirements.”

Whether your work is added to Turnitin’s comparison repository is left to the instructor: “Choose if you would like to store the student submissions in the Turnitin repository, and select the types of content you would like to compare each submission against.” If that matters to you — and for a thesis chapter you may later publish, it reasonably might — the person to ask is the person who set up the assignment.

The AI detector UBC never switched on

This is the part of UBC’s record that is unusual. Most universities that have a position on AI detection publish a paragraph of advice. UBC published a decision, with a decision-maker and a date, and then published it twice more.

4 April 2023, LT Hub, “UBC not enabling Turnitin’s AI-detection feature”:

“For a number of reasons, UBC has decided not to enable the new feature in Turnitin at this time.”

Six reasons were published with it. They are worth reading in the original order, because together they are a checklist of what a university thought it needed before trusting a detector, and it did not have any of it:

• Not vetted.“Because of the speed of its release, we have not been able to go through our normal process of vetting a new feature. As such, we do not know much about this feature’s functional limitations, drawbacks, and risks of use.”
• Accuracy testing early-stage.UBC records the vendor’s own claim and its provenance: “Turnitin claims that the feature is highly reliable, with few false hits and few misses. But this claim has not been independently evaluated.” UBC notes the “98% confidence” figure “was arrived at by checking their own training set of AI-written text against human-written text, and they have provided few details about that training set.” That is Turnitin’s number, reported by UBC; it is not ours and we do not adopt it.
• Instructors cannot double-check the result. “Most plagiarism-prevention tools give instructors both the flagged passages of the student submission and the matching source material(s) […] However, in the case of AI-detection, the source material simply does not exist. Instructors are instead shown passages that are suspected of being AI-written, with nothing to check against.”
• Bias testing early-stage.“without further information about Turnitin’s training set, process, or whether there has been any testing for bias, we cannot know the degree to which the feature may flag certain kinds of writing as AI-written more often than others.”
• Students cannot see the result. “The report provided by the AI-detection feature in Turnitin will only be accessible to instructors; students will not be able view the results. […] But with this new feature, there is no way for instructors to enable students to access results.” (The missing “to” is in the original.)
• It may not keep up.“Turnitin’s feature has been trained to detect AI-written work from the GPT-3 and -3.5 language models. But GPT-4 has already been released. Like the race between anti-virus companies and hackers, there will be a race between AI writers and detectors.”

The fifth reason is the one to carry with you if you are ever in a conversation about a flag. A tool whose output the student cannot see is a tool the student cannot answer. UBC identified that as a fairness problem before it became your problem.

28 August 2023, “Winter 2023 Update: UBC affirms decision to not enable Turnitin’s AI-detection feature”:

“For a number of reasons, UBC will be maintaining its April decision not to enable the Turnitin AI-detection feature, and the university will not centrally install any AI-detection tool at this time.”

The update adds an arithmetic point that applies to every detector, including ours: “Even a small percentage of error can translate into significant numbers of false positives or negatives across a large sample of student work at an institution.” It also notes the consequence of students not seeing the output — “That lack of functionality makes it more difficult for students to review information about suspected misconduct and to respond to any errors in flagged content.”

11 September 2024, restated on the Academic Integrity site, answering the question directly:

“No, currently Turnitin’s new AI-detection functionality is not available for use in any UBC course. UBC has reaffirmed their decision to not enable Turnitin’s new AI-detection feature.”

The decision body is named: the LT Hub Leadership group, with the support of the Provosts at UBC Vancouver and UBC Okanagan. That is rarer than it sounds. At most institutions you can find the position but not who took it.

The privacy assessment no detector has passed

UBC’s position on third-party detectors — the ones an instructor might paste your paragraph into on their own initiative — rests on a specific institutional instrument, and that is what makes it quotable:

“The use of other AI-detection tools is also not recommended, due to similar issues as those noted above, as well as privacy and security concerns; no AI-detection tool has undergone a UBC Privacy Impact Assessment yet.”

A Privacy Impact Assessment is UBC’s own review gate for a system that will handle personal information. Saying no detector has passed one is a governance statement, not an opinion about accuracy — and it is restated on the Academic Integrity site with a set of instructions to staff:

“None of the detectors has undergone a UBC Privacy Impact Assessment, and as such there may be privacy and security concerns with submitting student work to them, particularly without student knowledge or consent. Instructors should not use these tools to evaluate any student work that contains the name of the student or any other personal information of the student or third parties. If student work may be submitted through one or more AI detectors, instructors should be transparent with students and let them know at the beginning of the term, such as in the syllabus.”

Read that as three things you can rely on. Your work should not go into a detector with your name on it. If it is going to happen at all, you should have been told at the start of term. And UBC frames the whole area as one to avoid: “The use of applications to detect AI-generated content is strongly discouraged at this time, due to concerns about effectiveness, accuracy, bias, privacy, and intellectual property.”

On what a detector result may be used for, UBC is explicit in two sentences that matter enormously if you are ever accused:

“it is recommended that AI detection tools not be used as the sole factor in decision-making around an allegation of academic misconduct.”

“Instructors should not rely on AI detectors to form the basis of an allegation of academic misconduct.”

UBC also summarises the research position it is relying on: “Despite a number of AI writing detectors being available, recent research has found that all fail to perform accurately enough, and accuracy is further reduced when simple obfuscation techniques are used.” We report that as UBC’s statement of the literature. We have not reproduced those studies, and we are not going to assert in our own voice how accurate anybody else’s detector is.

If a flag has already landed on your work, our guide on what to do when you are accused of using AI walks through the reply, and how to prove you wrote it yourself covers the evidence to gather. The UBC sentences above belong in that reply, quoted and dated.

If a detector score is what started this, our guide to an AI detector flagging your thesis sets out what that number does and does not establish on its own.

What counts as misconduct, and the silent-syllabus rule

The governing text is “Discipline for Academic Misconduct”, a campus-wide regulation published in the UBC Academic Calendar, with parallel Vancouver and Okanagan versions. It is a Senate-approved Calendar regulation rather than a standalone policy document, and its authority is statutory: section 61 of the British Columbia University Act, which vests student discipline in the President.

A note on dating, because we will not invent one. The Calendar pages carry no printed “approved on” line. What is published is a transition marker: the current provisions apply except where a hearing before the President’s Advisory Committee on Student Discipline “had started by September 6, 2022”, in which case the prior version applies. A Senate approval date for the current text is not published on the page.

The general definition, § 3.1:

“Academic misconduct includes any conduct by which a student gains or attempts to gain an unfair academic advantage or benefit thereby compromising the integrity of the academic process, or helping or attempting to help another person commit an act of academic misconduct or gain, or attempt to gain, an unfair academic advantage.”

The regulation does not mention AI, and UBC says so itself rather than letting you guess:

“Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are not expressly named in the academic misconduct regulation but their use could be considered an attempt to gain an unfair academic advantage, as well constituting unauthorized means to complete an assignment or assessment, the accessing of a website that is not permitted, or other, depending on the specific case.”

The clause AI is read into is § 3.1.b.iv:

“use or facilitation of unauthorized means to complete an examination or coursework (including, but not limited to, receiving unauthorized assistance from another person […], or providing that assistance, or accessing websites or other online resources not specifically permitted by the instructor or examiner);”

Now the practical part. UBC is clear that permission is set locally, and equally clear about what silence means:

“The use of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools does not automatically equate to academic misconduct at UBC. At this time, whether the use of AI tools in courses is or is not allowed is a course or program-level decision.”

“If the use of ChatGPT and/or generative AI tools has not been discussed or specified by the instructor, then it could be considered as prohibitedas an example of the ‘use or facilitation of unauthorized means to complete an examination or coursework’ and more specifically as ‘accessing websites or other online resources not specifically permitted by the instructor or examiner’ […] and potentially plagiarism (3.1.e).”

“Students should not assume that all available technologies are permitted.”

“Students may use GenAI in work submitted for courses or other academic requirements only if expressly permitted within their courses or programs.”

That is a default of prohibition where nobody has said anything. It is not how every university reads silence — the University of Toronto’s published reading is more permissive, as our Toronto page sets out — so do not carry an assumption across from a friend in another province, or another faculty. At UBC, if the syllabus is silent, ask, and keep the answer in writing.

Two other offences are worth knowing because students trip on them without any AI involved. Plagiarism, § 3.1.e, is “submitting or presenting the work of another person as one’s own, without appropriate referencing”, and the regulation states that it “should not occur in submitted drafts or final works” — drafts count. And self-plagiarism, § 3.1.f, is its own offence: “reuse of one’s own previous work, whether in whole or in part, or the same or substantially the same work, without appropriate referencing and without prior approval from the instructor(s) to whom the work is to be submitted”. Recycling your own term paper into your thesis chapter needs permission.

Citing AI where it is allowed

There is no UBC-wide required disclosure form or wording. UBC points at the style guides instead:

“There has been much conversation about how generative AI should be cited if its use is permitted in assignments and academic publications. The American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA) and the Chicago Manual of Style have all provided recommendations in this area.”

UBC Library also maintains a “Generative AI and ChatGPT LibGuide”. Where your course requires an acknowledgement rather than a citation, our guide to writing an AI disclosure statement covers what a defensible one contains: which tool, on which parts, and what you did with the output.

A small, human detail from the same page, which tells you something about how these documents get written: UBC records that its Q&A “was inspired by the University of Toronto’s Chat GPT and Generative AI in the classroom (2023)”.

Sanctions, and a notation with no fixed end

Discipline at UBC ends with one person. § 9.1 is blunt about it: under section 61 of the University Act, the President “is given the power to deal summarily with any matter of student discipline”, and may “deviate from or modify the process set out in these Calendar provisions at any time, either generally or for a particular case”.

The published list under § 9.2 runs from a letter of reprimand; a zero on the work or a failing or reduced grade in the course; a notation of academic misconduct on the transcript; de-registration from courses or termination from an internship, practicum or research project; loss of UBC scholarships, bursaries or prizes; denial of admission or re-admission for a specified or indefinite period; a recommendation to Senate to revoke a degree “dishonestly or improperly obtained”; suspension; to expulsion.

On how long a transcript notation lasts, UBC is deliberately open-ended, and it is one of the harder facts on this page:

“9.4 If the President has imposed a notation on a student’s transcript, the student may normally apply to the President for removal of the notation after the period of time specified in the President’s disciplinary decision but the President may decide not to permit such an application.”

There is no fixed number of years in the regulation, so we will not give you one. The period comes from the decision itself — which means that if a notation is on the table, the length of it is a thing to argue about while the decision is still being made, not afterwards.

Two knock-on effects are published. During a suspension, “the student may not participate in UBC activities […] including but not limited to attending or auditing classes”, and “will not receive credit for courses taken at other institutions during the suspension” — so you cannot quietly make up the time elsewhere. And § 9.6 flags the consequence students most often do not see coming: “international students may be required to report changes relevant to their study permits to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.” If you are on a study permit, that sentence is a reason to get advice early.

Who decides, and the 45-day appeal

The route is longer than at most universities, and your instructor is only the first step.

The instructor reviews first (§ 4.1), “which will usually involve providing the student with an opportunity to meet to discuss the alleged misconduct as well as any extenuating circumstances”, and then reports to the Dean. That meeting is your first and cheapest opportunity to explain — take it seriously, and bring your drafts.

The Registrar may impose an academic hold at any point. The effect is immediate and practical: “When a student is placed on academic hold, the student is blocked from future course registration or admission to any program and UBC will not issue transcripts or a degree for that student.”

The Dean(§ 5) checks for a prior record and chooses between an integrity plan, a written warning, or referral upward. The integrity plan is UBC’s diversionary route under § 6 — but you cannot ask for it yourself: “Students can only be referred to the diversionary process by the Dean’s Office.”

The President’s Advisory Committee on Student Discipline holds the hearing and reports to the President, who alone imposes discipline — and who “is not bound to accept the findings of the President’s Committee”.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. § 7.3: the Committee “may consider all issues relevant to the allegation in making a determination as to whether, on a balance of probabilities, the student committed the alleged academic misconduct.” Note also § 7.1 — “The Rules need not be based on an adversarial model and an inquiry-based model may be applied.” This is not a court, and it does not run like one.

The appeal goes to the Senate Committee on Student Appeals on Academic Discipline, under s. 37(1)(v) of the University Act. Notice goes to the Registrar in writing within 45 calendar daysof the President’s letter. At least five members hear it, and you “may be represented or assisted at the appeal by any person, including legal counsel.” The committee’s rules were revised in July 2019 and apply to misconduct on or after 1 August 2019.

One limit worth understanding before you write it: “The Senate Committee is an appellate tribunal and does not re-hear matters.” The grounds carry different standards — correctness where policy was misapplied, reasonableness for the President’s assessment of the evidence and for whether “the discipline imposed by the President was excessive”, and a perceived-unfairness test for procedural grounds. An appeal that simply repeats your original account is aimed at the wrong target.

UBC’s President reports student discipline outcomes to Senate annually. We did not retrieve those reports, so this page quotes no case counts, and you should treat any number you see elsewhere as needing a Senate docket item behind it.

Before you submit

• Ask whether your assignment can show you its Turnitin report. The setting is published: unlimited submissions, and “Show report to students” set to Immediately.
• If the syllabus says nothing about AI, ask before you use it. At UBC, silence reads as prohibition, and “Students should not assume that all available technologies are permitted.”
• Get permission in writing before reusing your own earlier work. Self-plagiarism is a separate offence under § 3.1.f.
• Ask whether your submission is stored in the Turnitin repository. The regulation leaves that choice to your instructor.
• If a detector result is quoted at you, quote UBC back. “Instructors should not rely on AI detectors to form the basis of an allegation of academic misconduct”, updated 11 September 2024.
• If a decision goes against you, diarise 45 calendar days. That is the window for notice of appeal to the Registrar.

If you want a private read on your own text before you hand it in, our AI check is free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name. Our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof.

Sources

• UBC Academic Calendar: Discipline for Academic Misconduct — campus-wide Senate regulation; current provisions apply to hearings starting after 6 September 2022; authority under s. 61 of the BC University Act. No printed approval date.
• UBC Academic Calendar: § 9 Disciplinary Measures and § 11 Appeals.
• UBC Learning Technology Hub: UBC not enabling Turnitin’s AI-detection feature — 4 April 2023; decision of the LT Hub Leadership group with the support of the Provosts at UBC Vancouver and UBC Okanagan.
• UBC Learning Technology Hub: Winter 2023 Update: UBC affirms decision to not enable Turnitin’s AI-detection feature — 28 August 2023.
• UBC Academic Integrity: Generative AI Q&A — page footer “Updated September 11, 2024”.
• UBC Learning Technology Hub: Turnitin instructor guide — “This tool guide was last reviewed in February 2025”.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is the UBC Academic Calendar regulation “Discipline for Academic Misconduct” for your campus, together with your course syllabus and your instructor’s stated expectations. Where UBC publishes no rule — on opting out of the similarity checker, or on where submissions are stored — this page says so rather than filling the gap.