Responsible Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to establish a clear, consistent, and ethical framework for the responsible use of generative artificial Intelligence (AI) during the preparation of materials submitted to Phi Lambda Sigma (PLS). PLS recognizes that AI tools are increasingly used in education and professional practice and may serve as valuable resources when used appropriately. This policy seeks to preserve the integrity of Society selection processes while allowing applicants to utilize AI as a supportive resource. Applicants remain responsible for ensuring that all submitted materials accurately represent their own experiences, leadership, ideas, judgment, and personal reflections.

Scope

This policy applies to all materials, narratives, applications, awards, portfolios, and other submissions evaluated by Phi Lambda Sigma or its delegated bodies. Furthermore, collegiate and local chapters utilizing the Universal Member Selection Process (USMP) shall adopt and implement this policy, as part of their local membership application and review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers at both the Society and chapter levels are responsible for evaluating submissions in accordance with this policy. Reviewers are not expected to determine whether AI was used through AI-detection software or other means. Rather, reviewers should evaluate submissions based on authenticity, completeness, required disclosures, and alignment with the established evaluation criteria. Questions regarding originality or disclosure should be addressed through the review process outlined in this policy.

Guiding Principles

PLS stands firmly on the principle of authentic leadership. While the Society is not opposed to leveraging modern technologies to optimize and support text generation, the foundational ideas, reflections, and narratives submitted must unequivocally be the original work of the applicant. The ideas, experiences, opinions, leadership philosophy, and personal reflections presented in any submission must originate from the applicant. AI may assist in communicating those ideas but may not replace them.

Permissible Support: Generative AI tools may be used as a supportive resource during the development of a submission. Appropriate uses include brainstorming ideas, organizing or outlining concepts, improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, readability, and refining sentence structure. AI may also be used to identify opportunities for clarification or improve the overall presentation of an applicant’s own work.

Prohibited Support: Applicants may not submit AI-generated responses, reflections, narratives, or other substantive content as their own original work. The use of AI to generate or substantially develop responses to application questions, fabricate or embellish experiences or accomplishments, or otherwise misrepresent authorship or originality constitutes a violation of this policy.

This policy is founded on the principles of integrity, honesty, and personal accountability. It is intended to promote the responsible use of emerging technologies while ensuring that PLS selection processes continue to evaluate each applicant’s authentic leadership potential and professional judgment.

Mandatory Disclosures Requirements

Any applicant who utilizes an AI utility at any phase of their application development, regardless of whether the tool was used for minor proofreading or initial outlining, is required to append a transparent disclaimer to their submission. Failure to disclose AI use constitutes noncompliance with this policy, regardless of the extent of AI assistance provided.

The disclaimer must explicitly articulate:

• Platform Transparency: The specific name and version of the AI platform utilized (e.g., ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.5, Google Gemini).
• Functional Intent: A brief, precise description of exactly how the tool was utilized to support the application (e.g., “Utilized for proofreading and initial narrative outlining”).

Standard Disclaimer Template

“I hereby disclose that [Insert AI Platform Name] was utilized in a supportive capacity during the preparation of this application to assist with [Insert specific function, e.g., structural outlining/proofreading]. All core concepts, ideas, and reflections detailed within this submission are entirely my own original thoughts.”

Review Process

During the review process, reviewers shall:

• Evaluate submissions using the established scoring rubric or selection criteria
• Verify if AI disclosure statement has been provided
• Assess whether responses appear to reflect the applicant’s own experience, leadership, and judgment
• Request clarification from the applicant if questions arise regarding disclosure, originality, or authenticity

Response to Policy Violations

Applicants are expected to comply with this policy as part of the submission process. Concerns regarding compliance should be addressed in a manner that is fair, consistent, and proportionate to the nature of the concern. Whenever appropriate, applicants should be provided an opportunity to clarify or respond to concerns before a final determination is made.

Failure to disclose AI use or the submission of AI-generated content that misrepresents the applicant’s own experiences, ideas, or authorship may result in one or more of the following:

• Level 1: Clarification — If questions arise regarding disclosure, authenticity, or originality, the reviewing body may request clarification or additional information from the applicant before a final decision is made.
• Level 2: Selection Determination — Applications that fail to comply with the disclosure requirements of this policy or that are determined to misrepresent authorship, experiences, accomplishments, or originality may be removed from consideration or deemed ineligible for selection. For chapter-level submissions, these determinations should be made through the chapter’s established Universal Member Selection Process.
• Level 3: Referral — Serious or repeated concerns involving intentional misrepresentation, fabrication of experiences, or other ethical misconduct may be referred to the appropriate Phi Lambda Sigma governing body for Society-level submissions or to the chapter faculty advisor and/or appropriate academic or institutional channels for chapter-level submissions, consistent with local policies and procedures.
• Level 4: Formal Review — Reports of conduct that may require investigation beyond the application review process will be received, assessed, investigated, and resolved in accordance with the Phi Lambda Sigma Investigation and Discipline Framework.

Administration and Review

This policy will be reviewed by the Board of Directors no less than every two (2) years and may be amended at any time by majority vote. Amendments will be reflected in the policy header and communicated to the appropriate Society leaders and chapters.

AI Disclosure

This policy was developed with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (Gemini) as a supportive drafting and editing tool. AI was used to assist with brainstorming, organizing concepts, refining policy language, and improving clarity and readability. All policy concepts, decisions, governance structure, and final content were developed, reviewed, and approved by the author and reflect the intended standards and expectations of Phi Lambda Sigma.

Created: 07/29/2026 | Board of Directors Approval: 08/18/2026 | Last Modified: 08/18/2026