Legal status as at: 2 November 2026Marta Lampart – Attorney-at-Law
A high AI score in the Unified Anti-Plagiarism System (JSA) report is not always a death knell. The report merely indicates the likelihood that the text was generated by a language model. The decision on whether to allow the thesis to proceed to the defence is made by the supervisor based on their own assessment, not by an algorithm. If you wrote it yourself, there are genuine ways to prove it.
You’ve been writing your dissertation for months, you submit it to the system, and suddenly you see a red result. You start to worry about your defence, the deadline, and sometimes even your entire degree. I’m getting more and more questions like this from students. In this article, I explain how the AI indicator works in JSA, who decides whether your thesis is accepted for defence, what to do step by step, and what rights you have if the university has launched an investigation.
Why does my work end up at JSA in the first place?
This is a statutory obligation. Pursuant to Article 76(4) of the Act on Higher Education and Science (hereinafter: PSWN), if a degree thesis is a written piece of work, the higher education institution must check it using the JSA prior to the degree examination. This applies to bachelor’s, engineering and master’s theses.
The details of the procedure (who submits the work, by when, and what happens to the report) are already set out by your university: in the study regulations, the anti-plagiarism regulations or the Rector’s directive. It is worth reading these documents first.
How does JSA detect text written by AI?
The AI detection module in JSA, developed by the Information Processing Centre (OPI), is based on the premise that the more regular and predictable the text, the greater the likelihood that it was generated by a language model. The OPI itself emphasises that the system does not provide 100 per cent certainty and merely determines probability, whilst the final assessment of the report is carried out by the supervisor.
In practice, this means there is a risk of false alarms. The following types of text are particularly at risk:
- written in a very formal, academic style,
- featuring numerous definitions, calculations and a repetitive structure,
- with frequent references to legislation or standards (legal, technical and medical texts),
- edited using proofreading tools.
Following the 2026 summer thesis defence season, the media reported cases in which high AI scores had halted the process of approving independently written theses for defence.
Can the JSA result on its own prevent me from sitting my defence or remove me from the student register?
It does not happen automatically. The JSA report is a supporting tool, not a decision. The Act itself defines the JSA as a system that ‘provides support’ in combating copyright infringements (section 351(2) of the Higher Education Act). The Act requires a thesis to be checked in the system, but does not stipulate that a specific percentage automatically precludes a defence. The assessment is a matter for a person, usually the supervisor, in accordance with your university’s procedures.
Removal from the register of students is a separate administrative decision (Section 108(3) of the Higher Education Act), issued only on the grounds specified in the Act, e.g. withdrawal from studies, failure to submit a thesis or sit a final examination by the deadline, or expulsion from the university (Section 108(1) of the Higher Education Act). The system report itself does not constitute such grounds. However, be mindful of deadlines: if the clarification of the report is taking too long, request in writing an extension of the deadline for submitting your dissertation so as not to risk being removed from the register for failing to submit it on time.
Is text generated by AI actually plagiarism?
This is one of the most interesting legal questions of recent years, and there is no single answer to it.
The provisions of the Higher Education Act (PSWN) refer to the act of claiming authorship of another person’s work or scientific finding. This is the basis for the revocation of a degree (Article 77(5) of the PSWN) and for the mandatory disciplinary proceedings against a student (Article 312(3) in conjunction with Article 287(2)(1)–(5) of the PSWN). However, a ‘work’ within the meaning of copyright law is an expression of human creative activity. Text generated entirely by AI usually has no human creator, so it is difficult to describe it as ‘another person’s work’ in the traditional sense.
This does not, however, mean that the use of AI is risk-free. The university may assess the matter differently, for example:
- as a breach of the study regulations or the rules on the use of AI, for which the student is liable to disciplinary action (Article 307(1) of the Higher Education Act),
- as a failure to meet the requirement of independence: the Act defines a dissertation as an ‘independent study’ of a topic (Section 76(2) of the Higher Education Act), and the student usually signs a declaration stating that they have written it themselves,
- as classic plagiarism, if the AI has reproduced excerpts from other people’s texts without citations.
Therefore, always check what your university says about the use of AI tools. Many universities already have their own policies on this matter.
What should you do, step by step, if the JSA shows a high AI score?
- Don’t act on impulse. Don’t rush to rewrite your entire thesis to ‘meet the system’s requirements’ and don’t upload it to external ‘AI detectors’. Changes made in a panic may look worse than the original.
- Ask your supervisor for a meeting and to show you the report. Ask which sections the system has flagged and what the next steps are according to the university’s procedure.
- Gather evidence of your independent work. The strongest pieces of evidence are: the file version history (Word, Google Docs), earlier versions of chapters sent to your supervisor, outlines, notes, drafts, email correspondence, and source materials with your annotations.
- Read the study regulations, the anti-plagiarism policy and the university’s guidelines on the use of AI. Check the deadlines, the appeal procedure and who makes the decision.
- You may submit a written explanation. Describe how the thesis was produced and attach supporting evidence. Send it to your supervisor, with a copy to the dean. A written record will show that you responded promptly and objectively.
- If you used AI as an aid, state this clearly. Proofreading, translating a section or help with organising the bibliography are different from generating an entire chapter. Honestly describing how you used the tool can usually work in your favour, but see point 7.
- Consult a solicitor before the situation escalates. You can achieve the most at the clarification stage, before the matter is referred to the disciplinary ombudsman.
What if the supervisor refuses to approve the thesis?
A supervisor may have doubts and is entitled to ask questions. However, they should assess the work on its merits, rather than solely on the basis of a mark. If the discussion does not help:
- ask for a written statement setting out specific objections,
- contact the dean or the vice-dean for student affairs, in accordance with the study regulations,
- seek support from the student ombudsman or the student union, if the university provides such services.
Also check the deadlines. Postponing your thesis defence may have real consequences for you, for example, when applying for a postgraduate degree or for a job.
An investigation: what are my rights?
If the Vice-Chancellor suspects that a student has claimed authorship of another person’s work or has committed any other act referred to in Article 287(2)(1)–(5) of the Higher Education Act, they shall immediately order an investigation to be carried out (Article 312(3) of the Higher Education Act). This is conducted by the disciplinary ombudsman for student affairs (Article 313(1) of the Higher Education Act).
You do have a say in these proceedings. The Act (Section 315(1) in conjunction with Section 286(2) of the PSWN) gives you the right to:
- the right to provide explanations, but also to refuse to do so or to answer specific questions,
- the right to be assisted by a defence counsel of your choice,
- the right to submit requests for evidence (e.g. to call your supervisor as a witness or to have a file version analysed),
- the right to examine the evidence gathered once the evidence-taking stage has concluded and to request that it be supplemented.
The Regulation on Investigatory and Disciplinary Proceedings in Student Matters adds that the ombudsman will serve you with a decision to initiate proceedings, together with a notice setting out these rights.
Once the preliminary investigation has concluded, the ombudsman shall either discontinue the proceedings, refer a proposal for disciplinary action to the disciplinary committee, or request the Vice-Chancellor to impose a reprimand (Article 313(2) of the PSWN). Discontinuation requires the Vice-Chancellor’s approval (Article 313(3) of the PSWN). In the case of an allegation of misappropriation of authorship, the usual time limits for initiating disciplinary proceedings do not apply (Article 314(5) of the PSWN), so the case may be reopened even years later. Only if the evidence gathered confirms that an offence has been committed does the rector suspend the procedure for the award of a professional title until the disciplinary committee has reached a decision (Article 312(4) of the PSWN).
Can a university revoke a degree years later?
Yes, but only in a strictly defined situation. The Vice-Chancellor may, by way of an administrative decision, declare a degree to be invalid if, in their thesis, the person applying for the degree has claimed authorship of a substantial part or other elements of another person’s work or scientific finding (Article 77(5) of the Higher Education Act). This decision may be challenged in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure and, ultimately, before an administrative court.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Can the JSA be wrong?
Yes. The OPI itself states that the system determines probability, not certainty. That is why the report must be assessed by a human.
I wrote the thesis myself. How can I prove it?
Ideally, with the file’s version history, earlier versions of chapters sent to your supervisor, notes and correspondence. The more evidence of your work over time, the better.
Can I use ChatGPT for proofreading?
That depends on your university’s rules. Some universities allow the use of AI as an aid, provided it is disclosed. Check the regulations before submitting your thesis.
Can I rewrite sections to lower the AI score?
You can revise your thesis if your supervisor expects you to. However, do not do this blindly or without consulting your supervisor, as haphazard changes may make the situation worse rather than clarify it.
Am I at risk of disciplinary proceedings?
The JSA report alone does not determine liability. However, an investigation may be launched if the vice-chancellor considers there to be a suspicion of a breach. In that case, you have the right to provide explanations, submit evidence and appoint a defence counsel.
When should you contact a lawyer?
Ideally, straight away, if your supervisor refuses to accept your thesis or if you receive a summons from the disciplinary ombudsman. Early, well-prepared explanations often help to prevent the matter from escalating.
Summary
A high AI score is a stressful situation, but it doesn’t determine the outcome. What matters is how you react in the first few days.
If the JSA has suspended your benefits or the university has launched an investigation, book a consultation online or in Kraków. I’ll help you prepare your statement and assess your options. You can find more practical tips for students on my Instagram @prawo_na_uczelni.
__
About the Author Marta Lampart, with nearly 20 years’ experience as a lawyer, has been running her own law firm for 13 years. She specialises in higher education law, copyright law and new technology law, including AI. More about the author..
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific case.
