essay mill in research refers to

Essay mills explained: What they are and why you should avoid them

Essays and term papers can be stressful, especially for international students who sometimes doubt their ability to research in depth and write thousands of words in English, all to a tight deadline.  

That’s where essay mills come in, exploiting the fears of students and offering to do the hard work for them in exchange for money. 

But here’s the spoiler alert - you should absolutely avoid essay mills. All the time.

They don’t work for you. They don’t even work for the essay writers themselves, and you should see that as a big warning sign. But more on that below.

What are essay mills? 

Essay mills are pretty straightforward: You pay a company to write your essay for you. The company in turn offloads the essay to a (usually freelance) writer. A couple days or weeks later, and you get your completed essay in return. 

It’s not like a proofreading service, where someone can check your spelling, grammar and citations for a fee (though even those are controversial in universities). No, essay mills offer to write you an entire essay from scratch. 

In other words, they allow students to commit academic fraud. In fact, they exploit the worries and stresses of students and entice them into cheating. They’re considered deeply unethical, and put students themselves at risk of severe punishment if caught. 

Another business model of this kind are essay banks. Here, students can buy essays that have already been written. But there’s a much higher risk of getting caught for plagiarism, since who knows how many hundreds or thousands of people have used that very same essay. 

Are essay mills legal or illegal?

The legality of essay mills depends on where you go to university, but the unethicality is clear no matter the location. Here’s a quick rundown of essay mills’ legal status in popular study abroad countries:  

Anti - essay mill legislation in the UK was passed in the House of Commons in February 2021, and will soon be made law. It’s not totally illegal yet, but it’s just a matter of time. 

The Republic of Ireland has also passed a number of bills to help tackle essay mills, while the practice is totally illegal in Australia and New Zealand. 

As for the USA and Canada, some US states have made them illegal, while Canada is under mounting pressure to follow suit.  

But the content and nuances of these laws changes from place to place. For example, in some US states it’s illegal for the student to use them, whereas the bills in Ireland, the UK, New Zealand and Australia are an attempt to criminalise essay mill companies themselves.

However, when we talk about legality, we’re of course talking about the law. But just because you might not cause a criminal offense by using essay mills, it’s still academic fraud and/or plagiarism. And getting caught for that can come with some dire consequences. 

Long story short, you really shouldn’t use them, regardless of their legality. 

Why you should avoid essay mills

1. if it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense.

The writer's pay is awful. I mean really bad. Trust me -- I write for a living, and I’ve seen hundreds of advertisements for essay mill jobs. Every time I see one I can’t believe how little money the writers make for so much time and effort.  

But does this affect you? Totally! Would you care about doing great work if, a) the money was terrible, and b) it wouldn’t take you anywhere in your career? I know I wouldn’t...

Let’s talk about cost and time to put this into some perspective. The price range of essay mills varies wildly depending on the writers they employ. You can pay anywhere between £10-£35 per page. Roll this out over a 10 page essay, and it could be anywhere between £100 and £350 for the final product. But you can also come across offers for much, much less money than this.

While that higher end of £350 might seem like a lot of money, trust me -- it’s really nothing for the amount of research, writing, citations, editing and proofreading required. 

If £100 per day is considered a “just fine but not great” sum of money in the UK, a writer would have to do all the work on your essay in 2.5 days just to make it worthwhile. And they’d have to do it without the subject knowledge that you have. 

2. The writers aren’t subject experts

Think about it: if they were a subject expert, would they really be working for a shady company that facilitates cheating? Not a chance. 

The main point is that these writers are badly underpaid and they’re not experts, therefore they’re putting very little effort or expertise into your essay. They just want to do it as quickly as possible before moving onto the next one. 

3. There’s no guarantee of a good grade

None. Since the writers are underpaid, lack expertise and rush their work, it’s a recipe for a bad final product. Multiple studies have shown that essay mills do mediocre work at best. 

The essay you pay hundreds of pounds for might get you a pass grade, but you could do much better yourself. 

4. The punishment is harsh

Every university has severe laws on plagiarism and academic fraud, which is the exact result of using an essay mill. At its most lenient, a student caught breaking rules on plagiarism will receive no grade at all for the work, but at worst they can be suspended or even expelled from your university.  

But the perfect “crime” goes unnoticed, right? Well, it’s unlikely in this case. 

5. Essay mills and detection services

Most universities use pretty innovative plagiarism detection software these days, which can pick up on any hint of fraudulent work. Thus, the risk of getting caught is very high. And by the time a student does get caught, they’ve already lost their hard earned cash to the essay mill company. 

6. Essay mills don’t care about you

The company doesn’t care about you, and nor does the writer. That’s a pretty bad starting point for doing business! Once they’ve got their money and done their sub-standard work, they can move on to exploiting someone else’s fears. 

7. There’s a risk of scams 

Most essay mill sites demand a deposit of the final amount, or sometimes the entire fee up front. Either way, you won’t see your essay until you’ve paid them something. This makes it a prime opportunity for scam artists to take your money without giving anything in return. 

You see, it’s extremely easy for scam artists to launch a website advertising essays for sale, then just shut the operation down once they’ve made some quick cash without doing any work. 

Speaking of scams, here’s an article on some other international student scams to watch out for !

8. There’s a risk of bribery too

And then there’s the risk of bribery. Even if a student thinks they’re anonymous while dealing with essay mills, they’re not. There’s an email address, bank account name, even their IP address to worry about. 

So if the company or the writer decides that they want to blackmail or bribe a student by threatening to unveil the truth, they can. And they’ll always be able to.  

A final word on essay mills: Honest work is the best work

It sounds old fashioned, but there’s no replacement for smart, hard, honest work. Any student can write a great term paper or essay assignment on their own. All it takes is time, research, and some focus. 

Even if you’re under pressure or lack some confidence in your English ability, there are so many better ways to deal with it. Use a study abroad education counsellor , speak to your teachers and your friends. They’ll be able to point you in the right direction and help make that essay easier. 

As for essay mills? Forget about them. They’re exploitative, they serve no good purpose, and you can do a better job yourself!

So you’re thinking about studying abroad? Great! Check out the range of amazing courses available through Edvoy. Click here to get started or click the button below!

Guest Author

Disclaimer: The views and opinions shared in this site solely belong to the individual authors and do not necessarily represent t ...Read More

International student life in the UK

Top 10 tips for students to keep busy during quarantine

5 reasons why employers love foreign graduates

10 best cities to study abroad in Europe

How to stay productive when you’re studying at home

Blended Learning: What is it and how do I improve at it?

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Essay Mills and Why to Avoid Them

2-minute read

• 6th July 2018

Struggling with deadlines? College life feeling stressful ? You might be tempted to take a shortcut, especially if someone points you toward an essay mill. But what are essay mills exactly?

To help out, we’re here to explain what they are and why you should NEVER use them.

Essay Mills and Essay Banks

Some online businesses offer essays to students at a price. These come in two main types:

• Essay mills provide custom essays based on a specified topic, word count and deadline
• Essay banks sell pre-written essays, which are cheaper but less tailored

These businesses sometimes say that the essays they sell are just “templates” that students can use to generate ideas. However, using an essay mill is widely seen as cheating .

The Problem

Maybe you’ve read the descriptions above. But maybe you still think it sounds like an easy way to get a paper done without all the hard work of researching and writing it. Think again.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

If you use a paper from an essay mill or essay bank, you will regret it for several reasons:

• Using someone else’s words without citing them clearly is plagiarism
• If you are caught submitting a paper from an essay mill, it will count as academic fraud
• Colleges have software, such as Turnitin, designed to spot plagiarism
• Papers from essay mills can cost hundreds of dollars and there is no guarantee of quality

As a result, using an essay mill could leave you poorer and get you kicked off your course!

Essay Mills vs. Proofreading

But what if you still need help on a paper? If essay mills are a bad idea, what is your alternative? Well, the good news is that we can help! Having your work proofread has many advantages. We can:

• Correct your spelling, grammar, and punctuation
• Make sure your vocabulary is academic and that terminology is consistent
• Check that all of your sources are referenced correctly
• Tighten up your writing to make sure it is clear and concise

And all of this without making any major changes that could count as plagiarism. You will, of course, have to do the research and writing yourself. But that is how you learn things in the first place! The key is that we’re here to support you.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Essay mills: What are they, and why students should avoid them

Have you ever been stuck on what to write for your university entrance essay, or felt under pressure with the numerous deadlines looming and have no time to work on your thesis?  Maybe a friend has told you how they’ve used essay mills, or perhaps you’ve seen an ad yourself popping up on your screen while surfing the internet.

Essay mills, or “essay factories” , are businesses that offer a service to write an essay or term paper for students for a fee.

These are not your basic proofreading or editing services, but businesses where essays are written for you. They do extensive research, proofreading, citations, and deliver a final essay to the customer (i.e. you, the student), which you can credit as your own.

Essay mills are nothing new in this day and age, having started in the mid-1800s when students in fraternity houses shared term papers. Later in the 1950s, the lucrative business of ghostwriting evolved where writers wrote material on behalf of authors or celebrities. 

Specialised companies were set up near university campuses where students could walk in and purchase the services of a team of writers to do their essays for them. However, with the onset of technology and the internet, the essay mills business has mushroomed in recent years. 

Some students have opted to use essay mills to get their work done without the stress and pressure of researching and working on a paper themselves. These essay mills or essay factories are easily accessible and promoted via various social media and online platforms.

Gareth Crossman from Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education (QAA), an independent body that checks on standards and quality in UK higher education, told the BBC that one in seven college students  might be cheating  on their work. 

With essay mills, there’s a risk of bribery, while there’s no guarantee that the article purchased is of excellent quality. Source: Christina Quicler/AFP

International students whose English isn’t their first language may be tempted to use essay mills due to their lack of language skills or insecurities.

Despite that, they are highly unethical and can lead to students being found guilty of plagiarism and academic fraud. Nowadays, many universities and colleges use software such as Turnitin, which can easily spot any discrepancies or plagiarism in a student’s work. 

Some are even resorting to asking students to take oral examinations if it is suspected that they have not completed the work themselves. Ultimately, it’s best for students to avoid essay mills at all costs.

Students have an obligation to submit authentic work while at university, and understand how writing and researching for a paper is part and parcel of the learning journey. 

Taking the easy option of using essay mills services is for short gain only as students are essentially cheating and taking the credit for something that another person has worked on. To boot, there’s no guarantee that the article purchased is of excellent quality or free from plagiarism.

Suppose you are struggling with writing your term paper; why not consider taking some extra classes to improve your English language skills or talk to your university professor or counsellor for some valuable advice? 

There’s nothing quite like that feeling of pride and accomplishment of submitting work that you worked on yourself. After all, as the ancient Greek philosopher Sophocles once said, “Without labour, nothing prospers.”

Popular stories

8 best leadership skills everyone can learn from barack obama.

Is an MBA worth it? With a 50% salary boost and friends for life, it just might be

10 best time-management skills practised by presidents and CEOs worldwide

City, University of London: Preparing the health and psychological experts of tomorrow

Unscrupulous essay mills will soon be banned in the UK

Harsher punishments for students who use essay mills, academics say

Is paraphrasing academically dishonest?

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, digital standard + weekend, digital premium + weekend.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend newspaper delivered Saturday plus standard digital access
• FT Weekend Print edition
• FT Weekend Digital edition
• FT Weekend newspaper delivered Saturday plus complete digital access
• Everything in Preimum Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

University of Essex Online

I'm looking for.

Study mode:

Indicative duration:

Prefer to see our subject areas?

Home / Blog / Plagiarism and essay mills

Plagiarism and essay mills

11th Apr 2019

Student advice

For many students new to higher education, or returning after a long absence, ‘plagiarism’ may not be a familiar term. However, not knowing what plagiarism is isn’t a valid excuse and in the worst-case scenario, it can lead to withdrawal from your course.

It’s vital that as a new student, you familiarise yourself with the University of Essex Online’s Academic Offence Policy and resources in the Study Skills Hub to help you avoid falling foul of plagiarism. But for a short overview, read on to see how Stacey Davies, our Study Skills Manager, explains what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.

What’s plagiarism?

The University applies the following definition of plagiarism:

‘Using or copying the work of others (whether written, printed or in any other form) without proper acknowledgement’.

How can you avoid plagiarism?

To avoid plagiarism, most importantly you need to have a firm understanding of what exactly it is and feel confident in that knowledge; otherwise, you’re always going to be at risk of plagiarising accidentally. It’s also worthwhile understanding why plagiarism is frowned upon: one of the main reasons being that passing someone else’s work off as your own for credit is regarded as ‘academic dishonesty’. Learning is based on integrity and ultimately should not be easy.

In academic assignments , you are expected to read around the specified subject and then refer to your research in your writing. This shows a developed understanding of the topic and enables you to support or challenge your own points with the recognised work of others. You might do this by paraphrasing or directly quoting, but either way, you need to make the source of the information clear. You should reference your sources using the style required by your department.

What are essay mills?

It’s no secret that there are organisations and individuals out there that write assignments for struggling students at a fee; these are collectively known as ‘essay mills’.

There are severe consequences for submitting an assignment produced by an essay mill including exclusion from the university. Not only are you cheating yourself, but you are devaluing the value of your qualification, and ultimately you will not hold the skills associated with possessing a degree. For example, a dentist or a nurse may have purchased several assessments in order to complete their degree, but essentially not be qualified having not demonstrated all the learning required.

Essay mills will often advertise their work as being 100% plagiarism free or with the caveat that the work should not be submitted without the student making changes, but they are aware that most students are submitting the work as their own. This is also referred to as contract cheating.

Working with integrity

It’s clear that we all need to work together to uphold the integrity of the UK higher education system. The education secretary Damian Hinds, has “called on university students to report their peers if they suspect them of cheating as part of a government crackdown on essay writing services” (Weale, 2019). Cheating isn’t okay and it’s important that both students and academic staff work together to uphold academic honesty.

The approach towards essay mills and plagiarism in general is constantly developing. In the past week, PayPal have confirmed that they’ll no longer be working with essay-writing services acting on pressure put on them by the QAA. Universities UK have called for essay mills to be made illegal in the UK following other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand and Australia.

If you have any questions or queries regarding plagiarising or referencing please contact the Study Skills Team .

Weale, S. (March 20, 2019) Hinds calls on students to report peers who use essay-writing services. The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/hinds-calls-on-students-to-report-peers-who-use-essay-writing-services [Accessed 5 April 2019]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS FEATURE
• 23 March 2021

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

• Holly Else &
• Richard Van Noorden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Illustration by Ana Kova

When Laura Fisher noticed striking similarities between research papers submitted to RSC Advances , she grew suspicious. None of the papers had authors or institutions in common, but their charts and titles looked alarmingly similar, says Fisher, the executive editor at the journal. “I was determined to try to get to the bottom of what was going on.”

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 591 , 516-519 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5

Behl, C. J. Cell. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.29906 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Frederickson, R. M. & Herzog, R. W. Mol. Ther . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.02.011 (2021).

Seifert, R. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 394 , 431–436 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Byrne, J. A. & Christopher, J. FEBS Lett. 594 , 583–589 (2020).

Christopher, J. FEBS Lett. 592 , 3027–3029 (2018).

Qi, C., Zhang, J. & Luo, P. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.24.395319 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Supplementary Information

• Nature analysis of papers alleged to come from paper mills

Related Articles

China bans cash rewards for publishing papers

• Peer review

Citizenship privilege harms science

Comment 15 APR 24

Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most

News 15 APR 24

What the India election means for science

News 10 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Assistant Professor - Cell Physiology & Molecular Biophysics

Opportunity in the Department of Cell Physiology and Molecular Biophysics (CPMB) at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC)

Lubbock, Texas

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate- Curing Brain Tumors

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Energy AI / Grid Modernization / Hydrogen Energy / Power Semiconductor Concentration / KENTECH College

21, Kentech-gil, Naju-si, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea(KR)

Korea Institute of Energy Technology

Professor in Macromolecular Chemistry

The Department of Chemistry - Ångström conducts research and education in Chemistry. The department has 260 employees and has a turnover of 290 mil...

Uppsala (Stad) (SE)

Uppsala University

Postdoctoral research fellow focused on generative modelling of synthetic cohorts in brain research

Lunds universitet, Institutionen för kliniska vetenskaper Malmö Lund University was founded in 1666 and is repeatedly ranked among the world’s top ...

Lund (Stad), Skåne (SE)

Lund University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 27 December 2018

Academic integrity matters: five considerations for addressing contract cheating

• Erica J. Morris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2807-1586 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  14 , Article number:  15 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

62k Accesses

51 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

This commentary paper examines the issue of contract cheating in higher education, drawing on research and current debate in the field of academic integrity. Media coverage of this issue has reflected significant concerns in the field about students’ use of custom academic writing services, along with sector and national calls for action that would lead to making such essay mills illegal. However, recent studies have revealed the complex nature of contract cheating, with a relatively low proportion of students engaging in outsourcing behaviours involving a third party. This paper focuses on how universities and colleges can respond to this emergent concern, and proposes that institutions extend and establish strategies to embed the values, principles and practices aligned to academic integrity. As part of this endeavour, five areas of consideration are offered for higher education institutions that relate to: determining academic integrity strategy; reviewing institutional policy; understanding students; re-visiting assessment practices; and implications for staff professional development.

Introduction

This commentary focuses on the issue of contract cheating in higher education. In recent years, international work in the field of academic integrity has turned to examining this issue, including looking at the nature of contract cheating, estimating the prevalence of the problem, uncovering contributory factors or reasons as to why a student may outsource their assignment to a third party, and exploring how higher education institutions can effectively respond by enhancing both academic integrity policy and educational approaches (Bretag & Harper, 2017 ; Bretag et al., 2018 ; Curtis & Clare, 2017 ; Harper et al., 2018 ; Lancaster & Clarke, 2016 ; Newton & Lang, 2016 ). Contract cheating is a term that is now well-established in the literature to refer to ‘the outsourcing of student work to third parties’ (Lancaster & Clarke, 2016 , p. 639) and is typically used to describe a related set of practices in which students make use of third-party services, particularly academic custom writing services or essay banks, or where friends, family, other students or private tutors create an assignment, which a student then submits as their own (Lancaster & Clarke, 2016 ; Newton & Lang, 2016 ; Walker and Townley, 2012 ).

Empirical investigations have been vital for this area of academic integrity. Significant concerns have been raised by national agencies for assuring standards in higher education about students’ use of third-party services for assessment purposes (Bretag et al., 2018 ; Quality Assurance Agency [QAA], 2017 ). Media coverage has mirrored these concerns (e.g. McKie, 2018 ), but it could be argued that news stories simplify the issue, which is clearly complex, or could be seen as alarmist in approach. However, recent reports on how the use of EduBirdie has been promoted by media stars in YouTube channels for music, dating and gaming (e.g. Jeffreys & Main, 2018 ) has drawn attention to the international concern that there are students who are making use of essay mills, and that such services were not immediately and readily seen as a serious issue for students by those outside of higher education (in which influencers on YouTube refer to, for example, ‘professional nerds’ or ‘a bunch of … nerds to do the work for you’). Indeed, a government minister is cited on how such activity is ‘clearly wrong because it is enabling and normalising cheating potentially on an industrial scale’ (Jeffreys & Main, 2018 ). This raises the question of how in higher education we might respond.

Throughout higher education, it is crucial that academic integrity is promoted and re-asserted through international and national initiatives, and institutional policy and practice. By drawing on recent work that has enhanced our understanding of the issue of contract cheating, higher education institutions can focus on continuing to develop institutional strategy for academic integrity. This paper identifies five considerations for universities and colleges that are particularly relevant to this endeavour, including how the issue of contract cheating can be addressed: determining academic integrity strategy; reviewing institutional policy; understanding students; re-visiting assessment practices; and implications for staff professional development.

Determining academic integrity strategy

Over the last decade, a consensus has emerged that a holistic or multi-pronged strategy is required for higher education institutions to promote and support academic integrity, and effectively address its ‘shadow’ – student academic misconduct, particularly plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating (Bertram Gallant, 2008 ; Sutherland-Smith, 2008 ; Bretag et al., 2013 ; Higher Education Academy [HEA], 2010 ; HEA, 2011 ; Morris, 2016 ). Such a strategy should have an educational emphasis, fostering students’ developing academic literacies; ensuring professional development for staff relating to academic integrity education, applying policy, and enhancing curriculum (e.g. re-designing assessment); and be aligned to institutional policy for managing student academic misconduct, which is informed by recommendations or evidence-informed frameworks for implementing policy (e.g. Bretag & Mahmud, 2016 ; Morris & Carroll, 2016 ).

A holistic approach is still pertinent and appropriate for addressing the issue of contract cheating, but as proposed by Bretag and Harper ( 2017 ), there is a need for higher education institutions to ensure a ‘systemic approach’, in which academic integrity is integral to the wide range of institutional activity and processes, including: student recruitment, orientation and induction; policy and procedures; teaching and learning practices; working with students; the professional development of staff; and the use of technology (e.g. text-matching software). It is essential that in-depth consideration is given by institutions as to how they can integrate and augment their institutional strategy or approach with regard to all forms of student academic misconduct, including the outsourcing of assessment to third parties. For example, in the UK, national guidelines and recommendations have included the need to:

‘establish a cross-institutional group or committee, supported by senior management, involving representatives from all faculties … university services … and student representation with a remit from promoting academic integrity across the institution … and reviewing the policy and related guidance’ (HEA, 2011 , p. 8).

The implication here is that this kind of oversight can involve bringing together and building on the variety of measures and educational activities in place to provide a coherent institutional approach that is relevant to contemporary concerns. For example, questions could be asked about how the institution’s teaching, learning and assessment strategy is connected to the academic integrity or student academic misconduct policy, or how visible and accessible this policy is for all stakeholders, including students and the range of staff roles. Morris and Carroll ( 2016 ) have pointed to the need for stakeholders to appreciate that typically, there are no straightforward solutions in responding to academic integrity issues. Further, the implementation of a holistic approach must be applicable and responsive to the institutional context, with implementation entailing institutional resources to be committed and significant time for institutional change to be realised (Morris and Carroll, 2016 ). Therefore, an essential starting point for change is a review of existing institutional policy and procedures for academic integrity matters. To determine priority areas for development, this process can be accompanied by an institutional review of associated resources and activity, such as materials for student induction, forums for academic integrity champions, or toolkits for academic staff on designing assessment.

Reviewing institutional policy

A wealth of resources to support a process of review and implementation of policy and procedures are available for universities and colleges, including a conceptual framework, good practice recommendations and tools Footnote 1 (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016 ; Bretag et al., 2011 ). Regarding the issue of contract cheating, it has been argued that as part of a multi-pronged strategy at an institution, ‘a focus on the positive issues of academic integrity may prevent and/or deter students from using … third parties’ (Newton & Lang, 2016 , p. 265). Based on an extensive analysis of institutional policies, Bretag and her colleagues recommended that one of the core elements of exemplary policy, specified as ‘Approach’, should not only frame academic integrity in terms of an ‘educative process’, but that:

‘There is a clear statement of purpose and values with a genuine and coherent institutional commitment to academic integrity through all aspects of the policy’ (Bretag et al., 2011 , p. 7).

This is pertinent to all forms of student academic misconduct, including contract cheating. Institutions might draw on existing definitions of academic integrity to agree and build a shared understanding of commitment across the staff and student body, for example:

‘Academic integrity means acting with the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in learning, teaching and research. It is important for students, teachers, researchers and all staff to act in an honest way, be responsible for their actions, and show fairness in every part of their work. Staff should be role models to students.’ (Exemplary Academic Integrity Project, 2013 ).

However, policy must be understood, ‘brought to life’ (see Morris & Carroll, 2016 ) and be positioned by a central academic integrity office (or equivalent), so that the policy (and any associated changes from a review process) can have an impact on addressing misconduct. Findings from a recent survey of staff working in Australian universities has pointed to the value of policy, with a relatively high proportion of staff (51%) agreeing that policies and processes help to minimise contract cheating (Harper et al., 2018 ).

Through the regular review of policy, universities and colleges can make sure that there is detail available on all forms of student academic misconduct, in which a ‘definition for each needs to be clear with a range of realistic examples that take into account the varied forms of assessment used within different discipline areas’ (HEA, 2011 , p. 17). Policy frameworks should also include guidance and tools to support decision-making in determining appropriate penalties. There have long been concerns about the consistency of procedure in managing cases of student academic misconduct, particularly with regard to decision making in determining the seriousness of a breach and the associated penalty (e.g. Tennant & Duggan, 2008 ; Yeo & Chien, 2007 ). Clearly, ‘inequitable treatment is intrinsically unfair’ (Ibid., 2007, p. 187).

In the UK, against a backdrop of concern that there was inter-institutional variation across the sector in the use of penalties for plagiarism, and through a national research exercise, a Plagiarism Reference Tariff was produced (iParadigms Europe, 2009–11 ). This might be adopted by an institution to determine appropriate penalties or as a tool for benchmarking their own regulations under review. Under this tariff a ‘submission purchased from [an] essay mill or ghost-writing service’ can lead to one of a set of five penalties (which penalties to be applied is also dependent on factors, such as the student’s level of study) – two of which refer to expulsion from the institution (with credits retained or withdrawn). More recently in the UK, the QAA have stressed how contract cheating is essentially a ‘special case’ of student academic misconduct, which is:

‘an extremely serious matter because the deliberate, intentional decision of a student to engage a third party to complete work … elevates the seriousness of contract cheating above what would normally apply to a case of plagiarism. The recommended sanction … should be suspension or expulsion’ (QAA, 2017 , p. 26).

Harper and her colleagues (2018) report on the main types of penalties for cases of contract cheating as identified through a survey of staff at Australian universities. These included a range of responses from not knowing (28%), a warning or counselling (42%), a reduced mark (28%), resubmission (27%) and zero awarded for the assignment (37%), with only a minority of staff indicating that the penalty of suspension or exclusion/expulsion were applied (4% and 2% respectively). These researchers urge that for cases of contract cheating penalties should be ‘of an appropriate severity if they are to serve as disincentives for students to engage in this behaviour’ (Harper et al., 2018 , p. 120). Institutional guidance may also need to be revised to address a potential concern for students: what are they to do if they suspect or have evidence of a peer or group of peers engaging in contract cheating? From the perspective of the student, this could be a difficult dilemma (the peer may be a friend or flat mate). Recent proposals for institutional strategy include ensuring students feel able to report their concerns, are supported in doing so (Ellis, Zucker & Randall, 2018) and that policy includes ‘safeguards for false accusations and protection of individuals raising concerns’ (QAA, 2017 , p. 21).

To assess the impact of changes to policy or related programmes of activity, such as academic integrity campaigns or initiatives in the longer term, it is vital that institutions have measures in place to record and monitor academic integrity issues (Bretag et al., 2011 ; Bretag and Mahmud, 2016 ; HEA, 2011 ). These perspectives have recognised that a centralised system holding records about breaches, which is maintained by the institution, can be helpful in developing a clear picture or patterns in relation to the different forms of student academic misconduct (and possible changes over time), as well as in identifying issues concerning whether penalties are consistently applied (in line with institutional regulations). Through analysis, such records can also be used to indicate whether there are particular areas, such as subjects or modules where, for example, there may be a relatively high occurrence of a particular form of academic misconduct. With this latter possibility, there can then be a consideration of how an educational intervention, for instance, might be valuable for a specific context (Bretag and Mahmud, 2016 ; HEA, 2011 ). The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK have encouraged institutions to maintain detailed records on academic misconduct, differentiating between contract cheating and other forms to enable institutions to evaluate whether responses to address contract cheating are effective (QAA, 2017 ).

Understanding students

Consideration has been given to estimating the proportion of students engaging in contract cheating. There has been caution that media coverage about the numbers of students making use of third-party services ‘can appear … overblown’ (Curtis & Clare, 2017 , p. 116), but as suggested by these authors, it is important that policy makers have an awareness of the prevalence of contract cheating. Well-informed perspectives are valuable to mitigate assumptions that many students are readily seeking a third party to complete their assessments for them. There are methodological challenges in building a reliable and representative picture relating to the prevalence of the different types of contract cheating. This is primarily because evidence is usually derived from self-report, with the recognition that individuals may not accurately report on their own tendencies and behaviours, as well as the difficulty of capturing the range of possibilities with regard to engaging third parties (Curtis & Clare, 2017 ; Newton & Lang, 2016 ).

Recent work has indicated that a low proportion of students engage in contract cheating: in a meta-analysis of findings from five studies, Curtis and Clare ( 2017 ) conclude that 3.5% of students report that they have engaged in this form of cheating, and in a large-scale survey, it was found that 2.2% of respondents reported that they had obtained a completed assignment to submit as their own (Bretag et al., 2018 ). However, this survey investigated a range of outsourcing behaviours, finding that 5.8% of respondents reported that they engaged in one or more of the five forms of cheating, including submitting an outsourced assessment, providing exam assistance and arranging for someone else to take an exam.

In addition to ascertaining the likely extent of contract cheating, it is also valuable to gain further insight on the reasons that might lead a student to seek, use and/or return to using third party services. In dealing with academic dishonesty, Brimble ( 2016 ) offers clarity:

‘there are a variety of motivations that may drive student behavior resulting in a complex web of situational, behavioral, and contextual issues that educators and education managers need to understand in order to put strategies in place to manage this dilemma’ (Brimble, 2016 , p. 367).

Similarly, Bertram Gallant ( 2008 ) explored dimensions relevant to explanations of student academic misconduct, including internal (i.e. the characteristics of the student), organisational (i.e. what goes on with fellow students and in learning settings) and institutional (i.e. academic context). The established understanding in the field of academic integrity is that student academic misconduct is due to a variety of contributory factors, including students’ attitudes, motivations, preferences and prior experiences, that are likely to mix with, and be linked to, contextual and wider societal influences (Bertram Gallant, 2008 ; Brimble, 2016 ).

One of the key matters at hand is that contract cheating relates to a number of outsourcing behaviours, which have been extensively considered as an ‘outsourcing spectrum’ ranging from two defined ‘sharing behaviours’ to five ‘cheating behaviours’ (Bretag et al., 2018 ; Harper et al., 2018 ). This work has advanced our understanding of the factors that are linked to whether a student may outsource their assignment to a third party. To investigate the role of such factors, this recent work compared survey findings in relation to a group of respondents who had engaged in one or more of the cheating behaviours with those respondents that were categorised as a ‘non-cheating group’ (Bretag et al., 2018 ). Through such analysis, these researchers have identified that, in relation to this latter group, students in the ‘cheating group’ had lower levels of agreement in responding to aspects about the teaching and learning environment, such as ‘understanding assessment requirements’, ‘receiving sufficient feedback’ and ‘opportunities to approach educators’. Specifically, the key factors identified as significantly related to the likelihood of ‘cheating behaviours’ are ‘students’ International or LOTE (Language Other than English at home) status, higher levels of dissatisfaction with the teaching and learning environment, and perceptions that there are lots of opportunities to cheat’ (Ibid., pp. 10–11). Findings also shed light on how students, who may engage in outsourcing their assignments, are tending to rely on peers, friends or members of their family, rather than making use of services offered through websites (Bretag, et al., 2018 ).

Curtis and Clare ( 2017 ) point out that the possibility that a student may turn to using third party services is likely to be related to motivational factors as well as potential opportunity. Leading commentators have emphasised how custom writing services are established businesses, easily found online and advertising to students through, for example, business cards or fliers (Newton & Lang, 2016 ; Lancaster & Clarke, 2016 ). Further, such websites offer a range of services to produce different forms of assessment (e.g. dissertations, case studies, lab reports) at affordable prices and within short time scales. There is the possibility that features of these websites are ‘persuasive’. Adopting a usability framework to assess particular dimensions of websites, such as judged credibility or user involvement, Rowland and her colleagues ( 2018 ) identified how the eleven ‘contract cheating’ websites they reviewed, included a number of features relevant to a credibility dimension (e.g. content assuring qualified writers, confidentiality) and an involvement dimension (e.g. live chat, 24/7 help facility). Such websites also have conflicting messages for students. Footnote 2 These findings have implications for academic integrity strategy in universities and colleges: How are we talking to students about the problem of these services and of contract cheating? In what ways can we enable staff within institutions to ensure effective discussions with students about this issue?

The idea of the ‘vulnerable’ student has been put forward, who is essentially under pressure and may, for example, be more readily persuaded by the information on custom essay writing websites (Rowland et al., 2018 ). But it could be valuable to take a different angle: lines of enquiry or investigations could consider those students who undertake good academic practice in completing their assessment tasks – What are the key factors that influence their behaviour? How do they respond to pressures (internal and external)? What do they do that makes a difference?

Re-visiting assessment practices

In the evolving field of academic integrity, perspectives have consistently emphasised the importance of enhancing assessment practices as a key part of institutional strategy for academic integrity (e.g. Macdonald & Carroll, 2006 ; Morris, 2016 ; Sutherland-Smith, 2008 ). Good practice guidance for institutions has included advice on re-designing assessment to minimise opportunities for student academic misconduct, primarily focused on student plagiarism. However, although good practice guidelines for assessment are often based on evidence (e.g. Gibbs & Simpson, 2004 ) assessment strategies assumed to address academic integrity issues have, in the main, not be the subject of studies evaluating their effect or impact on student attitudes or behaviour (or the possible reduction in incidences of student plagiarism). Widely cited strategies have emerged, such as changing assessment tasks each year or assessing the process of developing an assignment, as well as the final output (e.g. Hrasky & Kronenberg, 2011 ).

With the growing recognition that third-party services could be employed by students for all kinds of tasks (e.g. critical reflections, lab reports) and can be delivered quickly to students (e.g. within a day), recommendations have been offered to prevent the use of custom writing services (Newton & Lang, 2016 ; Lancaster & Clarke, 2016 ). These include, for example, oral assessments in the form of in-class or recorded presentations, interviews or vivas, or seminar debates (see also Joughin, 2010 ). It has also been necessary to question commonly held ideas relating to how assessment design is a key solution to contract cheating (Bretag & Harper, 2017 ): for instance, ‘personalised, sequential and original assessments’ will not necessarily prevent this form of academic misconduct as, in principle, any form of assessment (or aspects of an assignment) can be outsourced. Informed by the outcomes of a project on contract cheating and assessment design, valuable advice and guidance assets have been produced for the higher education sector. Footnote 3 These resources explore the underpinnings of the problem of contract cheating, with suggested actions for institutions, educators and students. For example, in the guidance ‘Managing risk for different assessment types’, seven types of assessment strategies are re-visited that are relevant to the issue (e.g. in-class assessment, vivas) and are evaluated in the light of risk (for outsourcing behaviours) and advantages in terms of student learning.

Across higher education over the last decade, there has been a focus on improving assessment practices within universities and colleges through using evidence-informed frameworks and methodologies, with national and institutional projects undertaken to transform assessment policy and practice (e.g. Boud and Associates, 2010 ; Ferrell, 2013 ; HEA 2012 ; Jessop & Tomas, 2017 ). This is an area that institutions should continue to progress. In the light of academic integrity concerns about the outsourcing of assessment, it is recommended that institutions ensure ‘that students understand what is required in assignments, and that they receive sufficient feedback to learn from that work’ (Bretag et al., 2018 , p. 14). The idea of developing assessment literacy is valuable in this regard, in which establishing a community of practice for staff and students is necessary for facilitating a shared understanding of assessment standards within subject, discipline or professional areas (HEA, 2012 ; Price et al., 2012 ). Assessment literacy includes developing an understanding of how assessment relates to learning and the assessment process, a grasp of the nature and meaning of assessment criteria and standards, and building skills in self- and peer-assessment (Price et al., 2012 ). In practice, assessment literacy might be fostered through the implementation of an assessment protocol for staff and students, and integrating activities in curriculum that involve students constructing, discussing and applying assessment criteria, and using exemplars (see Anglia Ruskin University, 2018 ). Essentially, this approach can help students to understand what is expected and required of them through active participation, opportunities to prepare for assessments (e.g. in-class discussion about an assignment brief) and the process of formative feedback.

Implications for staff professional development

With regard to the issue of contract cheating, two key implications for staff professional development are clear: the need for good practice guidelines to assist staff in identifying the possibility of contract cheating, and guidance on how to facilitate effective discussions with students about academic integrity issues. Recent survey findings indicate that many staff think that contract cheating is ‘impossible to prove’ (57%) and/or may not feel they are supported by senior management about this matter (Harper et al., 2018 ). However, these researchers highlight that cases of contract cheating can be pursued effectively in institutions, but institutions may not necessarily be ensuring that all relevant staff engage with the issue or are not always communicating aspects about the process for referring cases or the outcomes from these cases.

A sustainable institutional strategy must involve a full consideration of how staff can be kept informed of contemporary academic integrity concerns, such as contract cheating, and how academic integrity champions or specialists across an institution (e.g. working at the subject or departmental level) can disseminate working knowledge of process and enable the sharing of good practice in identifying possible academic integrity breaches. Rogerson ( 2017 ) offers a practical process linked to the assessment cycle of preparing, marking and evaluating tasks, which involves identifying, recording and investigating irregularities that may be due to a student outsourcing their work. For example, while marking a student assignment, irregularities can be considered and documented; these are indicative signals relating to, for instance, the content (e.g. not addressing the assignment question) or referencing (e.g. using irrelevant sources). This evaluative approach is refreshing as it is tied to interactions with students:

‘Explanations can then be sought from the student as to why the observations appear the way they do … Conversations … enlighten us and provide opportunities to … evaluate learning practice and differentiate between contract cheating and poor academic writing skills’ (Rogerson, 2017 , p. 12).

A recurring theme in the current literature is the importance, in teaching and learning environments, of building relationships with students and holding discussions with them about academic integrity issues (Bretag et al., 2018 ; Ellis et al., 2018 ; Rogerson, 2017 ; Rowland et al., 2018 ). For example, there are specific suggestions for educators about how they might talk with students about academic writing services, such as the meaning of the help that these websites offer, so that educators can ensure students are fully aware of the sources of support at their institution (Rowland et al., 2018 ). An institutional approach should develop ways to support staff practices to talk with students about this issue of concern.

Conclusions

It is a deeply concerning that academic writing services are widely available and that a small minority of students are turning to a third party to produce their assignments. Recent reports on how EduBirdie, for example, has essentially been promoted in social media platforms continue to heighten concerns about the extent of contract cheating. There is, however, a need to remain cautious of claims that the incidence of contract cheating is increasing, as little baseline data is available to support this. Such investigations on a potential increase would also be confounded by the complexity of contract cheating and changes in the field about how the problem is understood (e.g. a number of different student outsourcing behaviours have been established). On this note, based on their meta-analysis, Curtis and Clare ( 2017 ) report that they ‘did not find any clear evidence of a historical trend for contract cheating to be more prevalent’ (p. 123).

This paper has offered five areas of consideration that are pertinent for an institutional response to the issue of contract cheating. There must be continued international work to emphasise that academic integrity matters: over the last ten years, there is much that higher education institutions have focused on to develop policy for student academic misconduct and improve teaching, learning and assessment practices. With the issue of contract cheating taking centre stage in the academic integrity debate over recent years, it is clear that institutions will need to continue to review and develop existing policy and procedures. Furthermore, such work should be part of an integrated institutional academic integrity strategy, which a university or college determines through building on their existing approach, with students and staff working in partnership on shared aims and principles.

In international scholarship (Draper et al., 2017 ; Newton & Lang, 2016 ) and at sector and national levels (Bretag & Harper, 2017 ), there are calls to introduce legislation, so that it is illegal to advertise or offer contract cheating services (QAA, 2016 ). This would be in line with legislation in New Zealand and the recent publication in Ireland of the Amendment Bill for Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training), which gives the national agency, Quality and Qualifications Ireland ‘statutory powers to prosecute “essay mills” and other forms of academic cheating’ (Department of Education and Skills, 2018 ). In the UK, there is currently a petition to Government to ‘Ban the provision and advertising of “essay mill” cheating services’, Footnote 4 with current endorsement of this petition expressed by, for example, a senior leader at an institution (Smith, 2018 ). It is generally recognised that if such services were illegal, this could help to provide a clear and consistent message to students about their use. Legislation could therefore solve aspects of the issue of contract cheating. It is vital, however, that universities and colleges extend and establish strategies to embed the values, principles and practices aligned to academic integrity. Further, it may well be worth exploring a protocol for academic integrity for the higher education sector at an international level, building on the ideas for a universal code of expectations and practices (Stuhmcke et al., 2016 ).

Resources available from the Exemplary Academic Integrity Project website. www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP .

For example, on the Edubirdie website, it is stated: ‘If you can’t write that essay, EduBirdie can’ and at the bottom of the ‘What is EduBirdie?’ page on the website the following is given: ‘it may be tempting to use the content we provide you as your own work, but we advise you to please use our services responsibly. The content … should serve only as a guide for your work and not the final product.’ https://uk.edubirdie.com/what-is-edubirdie .

Resources available from the Cheating and Assessment Design project website. www.cheatingandassessment.edu.au .

Petitions. UK Government and Parliament. Ban the provision and advertising of ‘essay mill’ cheating services. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/227277 .

Abbreviations

Higher Education Academy

Language Other than English

Quality Assurance Agency

Anglia Ruskin University (2018) Anglia Assessment Album. https://www.anglia.ac.uk/anglia-learning-and-teaching/good-teaching-practice-and-innovation/assessment-and-feedback/assessment-protocol . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Bertram Gallant T (2008) Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative. In: ASHE Higher Education Report 33(5). Wiley Periodicals, Inc., San Francisco

Google Scholar  

Boud D, Associates (2010) Assessment 2020: seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Sydney

Bretag T, Harper R (2017) Addressing contract cheating: local and global responses. Project on Contract Cheating and Assessment Design: Exploring the Connection PowerPoint presentation https://cheatingandassessmenteduau/publications-presentations/ Assessed 18 Oct 2018

Bretag T, Harper R, Burton M, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K (2018) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students. Stud High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788

Bretag T, Mahmud S (2016) A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 463–480

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bretag T, Mahmud S, Wallace M, Walker R, James C, Green M, East J, McGowan U, Partridge L (2011) Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. Int J Educ Integrity 7(2):3–12

Bretag T, Mahmud S, Wallace M, Walker R, McGowan U, East J, Green M, Partridge L, James C (2013) ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Stud High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406

Brimble M (2016) Why students cheat: an exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 365–382

Curtis GJ, Clare J (2017) How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? J Acad Ethics 15:115–124

Article   Google Scholar  

Department of Education and Skills (2018) 21 July, 2018 – Minister Mitchell O’Connor announces the publication of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) (Amendment) Bill. https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-07-21.html . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Draper MJ, Ibezium V, Newton P (2017) Are essay mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK). Int J Educ Integrity 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5

Edubirdie website. https://uk.edubirdie.com/ . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Ellis C, Zucker IM, Randall D (2018) The internal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. Int J Educ Integr 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3

Exemplary Academic Integrity Project (EAIP) (2013) Embedding and extending exemplary academic integrity policy and support frameworks across the higher education sector. Plain English definition of academic integrity. Office for Learning and Teaching Strategic Commissioned Project 2012–2013. www.unisa.edu.au/EAIP . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Ferrell G (2013) Supporting assessment and feedback practice with technology: from tinkering to transformation. Final synthesis report for the Jisc Assessment and Feedback programme. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/assessment-and-feedback . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Gibbs G, Simpson C (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learn Teach Higher Educ 1:3–31

Harper R, Bretag T, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K (2018) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university staff. Stud High Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462789

HEA (2011) Policy Works: Recommendations for reviewing policy to manage unacceptable academic practice in High Educ The Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service. The Higher Education Academy, York https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/policy_works_0.pdf . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

HEA (2012) A Marked Improvement: Transforming assessment in Higher Education. The Higher Education Academy, York https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/marked-improvement . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Higher Education Academy (HEA) (2010) Supporting Academic Integrity: Approaches and resources for higher education. Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service, The Higher Education Academy, York, UK. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/supporting-academic-integrity-approaches-and-resources-higher-education . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Hrasky S, Kronenberg D (2011) Curriculum redesign as a faculty-centred approach to plagiarism reduction. Int J Educ Integr 7(2):23–36

iParadigms Europe (2009–11) Plagiarism Reference Tarriff. https://www.plagiarism.org/assets/Tennant_referencetariff-1506356085.pdf . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Jeffreys B, Main E (2018) The YouTube stars being paid to sell cheating. BBC News. 1 May 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43956001 . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Jessop T, Tomas C (2017) The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. Assess Eval High Educ 42(6):990–999

Joughin G (2010) A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Wollongong

Lancaster T, Clarke R (2016) Contract cheating: the outsourcing of assessed student work. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 639–654

Macdonald R, Carroll J (2006) Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assess Eval High Educ 31(2):233–245

McKie A (2018) There’s clearly a demand; there’s clearly a supply. Times Higher Education, 12 Sept 2018

Morris EJ (2016) Academic integrity: a teaching and learning approach. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 1037–1053

Morris EJ, Carroll J (2016) Developing a sustainable holistic institutional approach: dealing with realities ‘on the ground’ when implementing an academic integrity policy. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 449–462

Newton PM, Lang C (2016) Custom essay writers, freelancers, and other paid third parties. In: Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Springer, Singapore, pp 449–462

Price M, Rust C, O’Donovan B, Handley K, Bryant R (2012) Assessment Literacy. The Foundation for Improving Student Learning. Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange (ASKe). The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford

QAA (2016) Plagiarism in higher education. Custom essay writing services: an exploration and next steps for the UK higher education sector. The quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education www.qaa.ac.uk . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2017) Contracting to cheat in higher education. How to address contract cheating, the use of third-party services and essay mills. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. www.qaa.ac.uk . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Rogerson AM (2017) Detecting contract cheating in essay and report submissions: process, patterns, clues and conversations. Int J Educ Integrity 13(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0021-6

Rowland S, Slade C, Wong KS, Whiting B (2018) 'Just turn to us': the persuasive features of contract cheating websites. Assess Eval High Educ 43(4):652–665

Smith A (2018) As a matter of fairness and social justice, we must ban essay mills. Times Higher Education 11 Oct 2018, p 29

Stuhmcke A, Booth T, Wangmann J (2016) The illusory dichotomy of plagiarism. Assess Eval High Educ 41(7):982–995

Sutherland-Smith W (2008) Plagiarism, the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity. Routledge, New York and London

Tennant P, Duggan F (2008) AMBeR project. In: Academic misconduct benchmarking research project. Part 2. The recorded incidence of student plagiarism and the penalties applied. JISC and the Higher Education Academy, UK https://www.plagiarism.org/paper/academic-misconduct-benchmarking-research-project-part-2 . Accessed 18 Oct 2018

Walker M, Townley C (2012) Contract cheating: a new challenge for academic honesty. J Acad Ethics 10:27–44

Yeo S, Chien R (2007) Evaluation of a process and proforma for making consistent decisions about the seriousness of plagiarism incidents. Qual High Educ 13(2):187–204

Download references

Acknowledgements

Non applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Independent Consultant, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

Erica J. Morris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The article has been authored solely by Erica J. Morris.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica J. Morris .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

EJM is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), with leadership experience in higher education assessment strategy and systems, and academic integrity policy and practice. EJM has recently led the Degree Standards project focused on strengthening the external examining system in the UK, was an invited expert for a Roundtable and National Speaking Tour in Australia for the Exemplary Academic Integrity project (2013) and led the Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service in the UK (2009–11). With an interdisciplinary background in psychology, technology-enhanced learning and statistical education, EJM has worked at Anglia Ruskin University and the Open University, UK.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Morris, E.J. Academic integrity matters: five considerations for addressing contract cheating. Int J Educ Integr 14 , 15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5

Download citation

Received : 24 October 2018

Accepted : 29 November 2018

Published : 27 December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic integrity policy
• Contract cheating
• Professional development

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

December 12th, 2017

The crumbling façade: my experience working for an essay mill.

10 comments | 4 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

According to a recent UK Government-backed review, academics are topping up their earnings by writing for “essay mill” sites which help students to cheat in their assignments. S. A. Mills was one of those academics and recounts the experience here; offering an insight into the allure of such opportunities for those either out of work or in precarious positions, as well as the transactional nature of working for these services and with their clients.

Please note the author’s name has been changed.

New proposals to crack down on “essay mill” sites are arguably overdue. This is a £100 million industry largely cornered by online companies. These essay mill companies provide the service of “ contract cheating ” for students willing to pay for someone else to write their coursework. That someone else is, in effect, a “ ghost writer ”.

I was such a ghost writer. I was not familiar with essay mills or contract cheating when, having Googled “academic writer”, I found details of the post online. The notice merely asked those interested to provide a resumé, brief covering letter, and copy of their academic certificates. At the time I had been without income for a number of months. Because I was in need of some – any – income, it seemed a reasonable option, especially after having had several unsuccessful interviews for academic jobs. Having signed up, I received meagre fees to produce “ model essays ”, competing with other academics for writing briefs while I looked for my next post.

Model essay

The telephone “interview” was far from demanding. Perhaps anticipating concerns, the company sought to offer some reassurance with what seemed a stock response: my job would be to produce model essays that would support clients to produce their own work. Anyone found using the service for an illegitimate purpose would be in breach of company policy and be banned from using the service again. If this was an honest intention it would have been easy to police. But in reality, incidents of misuse were seemingly ignored. For example, on several occasions I had the opportunity to improve a piece of work to a higher grade than previously received. More than once, what I was expected to improve was identical to what I had submitted earlier. The client had not engaged with it but rather passed it of as their own and, tellingly, the company had not taken any action.

I could bid for as many or as few pieces of work at a time as I wanted, on whatever subject areas took my interest, provided I could make a reasonable case that I had the expertise to write. Aside from providing an income, I saw the work as a chance to brush up on areas I had previously been interested in, and to learn newish areas while getting paid. I think I produced good work more often than not, taking pride in several of the pieces I submitted. Indeed, there were some I would have been proud to have put my name to. Other times I would go for “C” grade work and write something quick and dirty that was simply passable. Being asked to produce model work to a particular standard seemed somewhat strange, but when you have bills to pay you tend not to enquire.

Image credit: Drummond Mill Chimney by Tim Green. This work is licensed under a CC BY 2.0 license.

Quality control and alterations

The process did not end when I submitted the essay. Usually, the work would be “quality controlled” within 48 hours. Because this could require a quick turnaround, it often left me chained to my email, waiting to hear if changes were necessary. I considered quality control to be more of a quantitative, tick-box exercise, because whenever I was even one word short of 50 below what was stipulated I would incur a fee adjustment. Spelling and grammar were other targets. My observation was that more often than not there was much less focus on the substance of the content. The company would argue that the fee reflected the expense of having to check and recheck the brief – something about duplicated effort, and time spent sending a quality control failure email, etc. The financial penalty was one thing, but this seemed an odd way of doing academia – through financial punishment. It was disparaging and an insult to my capabilities as an academic. But then these companies are not remotely “academic”.

The purpose of the model essay as a learning tool was most clearly contradicted by the process of meeting the client’s alteration requests. Clients were permitted to request amendments to work within a specified timeframe after submission. It was reasonable for clients to request changes if the writer had failed to capture the initial essay question. If the demand was invalid (e.g. asking for something not in the initial brief) or made after the specified timeframe, this would carry an additional fee payable to the writer. I would be asked if I wanted to tackle the alterations and also to suggest the additional fee, up to a certain point. The company would then, I understand, charge the client three times that amount.

The process required me to refer to tracked changes and comments, which I found odd, to say the least, as on reading the requests I wondered why the student – who at the outset was supposed to be “competent but just lacking in their English writing/grammar” – suddenly appeared so clued up on the changes to be made. It would be reasonable to ask why the student did not just make the changes her/himself, or even why she/he hadn’t just written the work in the first place. It was not difficult to draw the conclusion that I was not only writing students’ coursework but almost certainly also rewriting it based on supervisor comments. The model essay was a façade.

On the few occasions I worked on Master’s degree works, I had contact with the client via a telephone link. For all undergraduate works a company buffer would serve as an email intermediary. On being asked to write amendments, I would work from both the feedback of the marker and the client’s requests. The latter were often easy to spot as they were so poorly written, leading me to assume many were students whose first language was not English. On several occasions I was explicitly provided work for students in a foreign country.

It is expected that clients use the model essay to learn and be inspired to write their own coursework . There is nothing illegal in firms providing such a service, nor in me or others producing such works, at the time of writing. The onus is on the clients to use the service correctly. If she/he used the product for the incorrect purpose of plagiarism, she or he alone was in the wrong legally. I cannot put a figure on what percentage actually used it for the intended purpose or not. I do wonder how clients interacted with the “model essay” and what role they perceived it to have.

Ghost-writing was not a lucrative post. To earn anything approaching a liveable income required writing as many works as possible. I would have to work on three or four briefs per week, for which I would be lucky to make £300. Because it was a seasonal business, with peaks and troughs, I would grab every opportunity. During peak periods (March-June and around Christmas) I would barely take a day off as there would be a constant stream of briefs to complete; often four or more per week, ranging from 1,000 words to 5,000. This left very little time for job hunting; leaving me in a vicious cycle.

The empire strikes back

In October, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the university standards watchdog, proposed UK Government-backed guidance to address these issues. There is now a move to address the matter of academics who write model essays as a means of topping up their income . Academic work is, for many, precarious, with short-term contract posts and staff redundancy. The work I did was between posts to provide my sole income because working for an essay mill was a better option than benefits. But there are academics with posts who will use it as a chance to supplement their salaries , particularly if they are not well-paid.

Douglas Blackstock, the Chief Executive of the QAA has noted how “you wouldn’t want a lawyer representing you in a court case [if they had not passed their Law degree on their own]. If it was a medical related profession or something that [impacted on] public safety – that is such a dangerous thing”. But actually, the problem begins when the student applies to a university, with ghost writers often employed to write the personal statement in support of their application. This is another service available to students, and one that I provided. Apart from the obvious problem of students gaining entry at least partly on the basis of statements written by other people, the possibility exists that these companies are gathering repeat customers as the same students seek model essays.

Essay mills are businesses providing a product to be used in academia. They do not provide an academic service, because there is no engagement with the student to provide training – the only interaction being financial. These private companies have identified a demand that can be met, and do so handsomely.

If a student is struggling with coursework demands, or truly finds writing difficult, spending their way out of the challenge should not be the answer. But knowledge is for sale and so this might seem a natural option. This problem will probably not go away by merely ensuring more student support from overstretched lecturers because the use of essay mills is a normalised and viable option for some. The problem of online cheating is deeper and more pervasive than first thought.

Please note the author’s name has been changed.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

About the author

10 Comments

If the essays are truly intended as model essays (!), then to avoid them being submitted as final pieces of work, could there be an obligation for the companies to register the papers with a service like iThenticate/TurnItIn, so that cheating via this mechanism would be detected? In that case, a student could still seek the support of a model essay (leaving aside the various questions that that activity provokes), but they would be unable to then directly use the paper. It’s likely, of course, that this would cause a huge downturn in business for these companies, but that would also be the point – but it would only be using their own arguments to create greater regulation.

If language is the primary issue for students to seek such papers, then there would still be an opportunity for the provision of language polishing services, which would be legitimate, as long as the core work was fundamentally unchanged – although that in turn would be quite hard to monitor.

• Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » The crumbling façade: my experience working for an essay mill

Before cracking down on essay mills for students, if just to avoid the hypocrisy, perhaps we should crack down on academic writing services for their professors.

These services vary widely in their scope. At one end there is proof-reading and copy-editing. At the other end, researchers can pay to have others essentially conduct all the research except data gathering. It can start with writing a proposal, continuing with data analysis, “co-writing”, “re-writing””, submitting the paper, addressing the reviewer’s comments, and producing a revised version.

If you want more disturbing details, please look up “Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers” and references therein.

It looks the business model of cheating for hire is slowly but surely dying (good news for students and academic institutions) – essayscam.org/forum/wc/panicking-research-orders-students-down-5788/

• Pingback: Impact of Social Sciences – 2017 in review: top posts of the year

Essay mills are a symptom of wider problems- universities expanding too fast and taking on students like water, with no regard as to teaching quality and support services. Not all students are fit to go to university. Also, one-on-one academic support is practically nonexistent, especially in places like the LSE. Hence nobody’s familiar with the students’ writing style, making it easier to cheat. But it’s easier to go after the essay mills than the universities, right?

I also think that it is necessary first of all to deal with the structure of education itself and then move on to other issues.

I have read with dismay some of the comments on this post over the last year. It seems an obvious rebuttal to make the claim that contract cheating is part of the more endemic problem of the free market in academia. No-one would doubt that Academia has many problems, but I think to say that this justifies essay mills is disingenuous.

The companies only exist because there is a reserve pool of academic labour either unemployed or underemployed, and because there are students willing to pay to cheat their way through University. This is a problem of the free market in Academia. But to blame the symptom (contract cheating) on the problem (free market), seems to me a flawed argument.

The companies might offer a defence that the product they offer is well meaning and only wrong when abused by the student passing it off as their own. This merely deflects their responsibility and perpetuates the pretence that are not at fault.

The companies might say that banning them would not stop students from cheating in other ways. But it might reduce the magnitude of the problem of student cheating. Such companies are probably less concerned with the problem of cheating than their financial books, which is understandable. Of course, they will want to make as much money as they can from this revenue for as long as possible.

• Pingback: Who are the contracting authors? – The Share Collusion Project

f the essays are truly intended as model essays (!), then to avoid them being submitted as final pieces of work, could there be an obligation for the companies to register the papers with a service like iThenticate/TurnItIn, so that cheating via this mechanism would be detected?

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

How to write a “good” REF Environment Statement

February 27th, 2024.

The Grammar of Impact – What can we learn from REF 2014 about writing impact case studies? 

May 11th, 2020.

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists

May 9th, 2016.

The value of academic writing is in its ability to channel further thought. Attempts to measure this effect are ill-fated.

June 28th, 2013.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Paper Mills- A Rising Concern in the Academic Community

This article is also available in Japanese

A good publishing record is one of the essential criteria for promotion, tenure, and grant acquisition for future projects. The pressure to publish more papers drives researchers towards unethical practices such as purchasing fictitious research papers. Academic frauds including data falsification, image manipulation, fabricated peer review have plagued the research publishing landscape for years together! The research community is working hard to maintain research integrity. Despite strict measures and vigilance, research misconduct and academic foul play has been discovered in manuscripts accepted by publishing powerhouses such as the Nature Publishing Group, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, etc. In addition to concerns related to plagiarism, ethical issues, and authorship disputes, the scientific community is now bracing to fight against the act of systematic manipulation of manuscripts by “paper mills”.

What is a Paper Mill?

Paper Mill is a potentially illegal organization that produces and sells fraudulent scientific manuscripts written by ghostwriters on demand! Researchers who require publications for furthering their career or meeting institutional criteria for promotion buy publication ready manuscripts. The service is purely profit-oriented. Researchers pay hefty amounts for authorships on ready-to-submit manuscripts. Their potential clients include researchers who wish an easy way out to publish in international journals without actually engaging in research. Some of the paper mills might have actual laboratories that perform experiments and produce actual data and images. Further, several authors buy these data to use in different experiments.

Hallmarks of Paper Mill Generated Manuscripts

Peculiar characteristics of manuscripts produced by paper mills include a generic hypothesis and experimental strategies, textual and organizational resemblances, and images that reflect duplication or manipulation. Let us go through them one-by-one.

• Manuscripts produced using paper mills have a set template having unusual similarity of text. They may also contain phrases that are almost identical or have been phrased in an awkward manner. Consider the following sentences: This study allowed us to have a better and in-depth understanding of the association between mutations in gene X and colon cancer risk. B. This study assisted in having an in-depth and better understanding of the association between gene Y and cervical cancer risk.

Both these statements have minor variations in wording. Authors simply plug in names of different genes and diseases into appropriate positions.

• Although the images can be real photos of cells/tissues, gels, flow cytometry profiles, they are fabricated to suit the experimental requirements.

For examples, western blot images presented in paper mill-generated manuscripts inexplicably contain similar background patterns and peculiarly shaped bands. A similar background across images published in manifold manuscript suggests either computer generated or copy-pasted images from other sources. The gel images also lack stains, dots, or fine smears that are normally present in such images.

Guillaume Filion, a biologist at the Center for Genomic Regulation in Barcelona has claimed that several manuscripts report the use of ‘Beggers funnel plot’ . It is a statistical test that does not exist. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that multiple scientists working in different research labs independently invent the same name.

• They often have authors with non-institutional or personal email addresses.
• Manuscripts produced by paper mills provide very superficial explanations for methods or analyses used.

Concerns Associated with Identifying Manuscripts Produced by Paper Mills

• Spotting dubious manuscripts is not an easy task! Although several advanced tools such as iThenticate and PlagScan , that detect plagiarized text are available these days, tools that can detect plagiarized or fake data are not very common. On their own, these manuscripts appear legitimate, common patterns and shared features come to light only when editors compare multiple papers authored by different researchers with nothing in common.
• Journals’ editors may request for raw data if they are suspicious about a manuscript. However, checking data credibility is not straightforward, especially if analysis of data files requires specialist software. This process can be time consuming and expensive. In addition, it may be difficult to find out if the data is manipulated until you are an expert in that field. For instance, to judge whether a flow cytometry file has been made-up, you have to be a flow cytometry expert.
• Tracking correspondence can be problematic because it is uncertain whether the editors are approaching original authors or paper mill representatives.

Approaches to Detect Manuscripts Generated by Paper Mills

Editors and reviewers have become highly vigilant about submissions that are churned out of paper mills. An extensive investigation by RSC Advances led to retraction of about 68 articles on the grounds of falsified research.  Following are the various means used to ensure no foul play is involved.

• Editors may request the authors to submit raw data associated with manuscript results and images.
• Reviewers may verify the identities of chemicals and reagents. They may also check for fully disclosed identities.
• Reviewers would check for valid study hypothesis and experiments drafted in accordance with study hypothesis.

What Should Researchers Do to Boost Journals’ Confidence in Their Manuscripts?

• Researchers must fully declare all the externally provided research results, if the experiments have been outsourced.
• Completely disclose the identities of all the raw materials, chemicals and reagents used in the study.
• Provide supplemental original source files (raw data/ individual data points) in a readable format.
• Authors may declare in the “Author’s Contributions” section that all the data were generated in their own laboratories using fair means and no paper mill was used.

As researchers would you only be concerned about increasing your publication count even at the cost of losing authenticity of papers? Wouldn’t citing of such papers mislead other researchers to falsified results and eventually hamper the growth of scholastic reasoning in science? Please let us know your thoughts on this in the comments section below. You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to other unethical practices and how to avoid them to enhance your publishing record answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Industry News

Controversy Erupts Over AI-Generated Visuals in Scientific Publications

In recent months, the scientific community has been grappling with a growing trend: the integration…

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Trending Now

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

ICMJE Updates Guidelines for Medical Journal Publication, Emphasizes on Inclusivity and AI Transparency

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recently updated its recommendations for best practices…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

China’s Ministry of Education Spearheads Efforts to Uphold Academic Integrity

In response to the increase in retractions of research papers submitted by Chinese scholars to…

Understanding the Difference Between Research Ethics and Compliance

Understanding Researcher Awareness and Compliance With Ethical Standards – A global…

Increasing Threat of Scientific Misconduct and Data Manipulation With AI

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Essay Mills and Contract Cheating from a Legal Point of View

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Michael Draper 7  

535 Accesses

9 Citations

This chapter provides an overview and analysis of the operation of essay mills and contract cheating from a legal point of view through the lens of some of the countries that have either adopted or are considering the adoption of legislation in relation to essay mills. This chapter considers the rationale for legislation in the Republic of Ireland and Australia and the arguments for legislation to be introduced in the United Kingdom with the differences between the various enactments and proposals considered in addition to the issues of enforcement of laws resulting from the operation of essay mills across borders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

“When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of [the] evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant” (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2018 ).

The QQI “is an independent State agency responsible for promoting quality and accountability in education and training services in Ireland. It was established in 2012 by the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012” (QQI, 2018 ).

Further statements suggested that “Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and, most recently, Ireland have already taken action to make essay mills illegal in their countries, and the Quality Assurance Agency has been in close contact with the countries that have banned essay mills to monitor the effect of the ban. The ban is already making a difference. In Australia, following legislation, the Edubirdie, EssayShark, and Custom Writings websites, for instance, now all state ‘Our service is not available in your region;’ yet, in contrast, they all still thrive in the UK” (Skidmore, 2021, as cited in UK Parliament—Hansard, 2021 ).

Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2015). 10. Strict and absolute liability. In ALRC (Ed.), Traditional rights and freedoms—Encroachments by commonwealth Laws final report (pp. 285–308). Fineline Print & Copy Service NSW.

Google Scholar  

Bean, D. (2019, November 7). Official information act request . New Zealand Qualifications Authority. https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Information-releases/OIA-releases/December-2019/Numbers-charged-under-s292E-of-the-Education-Act-1989-CR19687.pdf .

Blackstock, D., & McClaran, A. (2019, November 4). Memorandum of co-operation between the QAA, United Kingdom and the TEQSA, Australia . Australian Government - QAA. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/international/teqsa-qaa.pdf?sfvrsn=732df381_10

Brown, T. (2021, June 16). In focus: Higher education cheating services prohibition bill [HL] . UK Parliament – House of Lords Library. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/higher-education-cheating-services-prohibition-bill-hl/

Council of Europe. (2021a). About ETINED . https://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education/about-etined .

Council of Europe. (2021b). 2nd ETINED plenary session (2018) . https://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education/2nd-etined-plenary-session .

Department of Education and Skills. (2017, May 15). Bruton announces new powers for the higher and further education regulator . https://merrionstreet.ie/en/category-index/education/bruton_announces_new_powers_for_the_higher_and_further_education_regulator.125846.shortcut.html .

DLA Piper. (2021, July 12). Corporate: Incorporation process . https://www.dlapiperintelligence.com/goingglobal/corporate/index.html?t=06-incorporation-process .

Draper, M., Ibezim, V., & Newton, P. (2017). Are essay mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Draper, M. J., & Newton, P. M. (2017). A legal approach to tackling contract cheating? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0022-5

Draper, M. J., & Reid-Hutchings, C. (2019). Are essay mills committing fraud? A further analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK). International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0050-4

Ellis, C., Zucker, I. M., & Randall, D. (2018). The infernal business of contract cheating: Understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3

eolas Magazine. (2019, December). Clamping down on academic cheating in Ireland . https://www.eolasmagazine.ie/clamping-down-on-academic-cheating-in-ireland/

Ferguson, H. (2020, February 13). TEQSA (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019. Bills digest, 2019–2020 (84), Parliament of Australia, Australia. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/7182391/upload_binary/7182391.pdf .

Fogarty, P. (n.d.). How students turn to ‘essay mills’ to help them cheat . BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190329-the-essay-mills-that-help-students-cheat

Hansard - UK Parliament. (2017, January 25). Higher education and research bill volume 778: Debated on Wednesday 25 January 2017. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-25/debates/B510EEDD-43EC-4FA9-8222-865249D8A3D2/HigherEducationAndResearchBill?highlight=contract%20cheating#contribution-968EC100-680F-438B-B16A-D4A9C7818DE8

House of Representatives - Commonwealth of Australia. (2020, June 12). Tertiary education quality and standards agency amendment (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019 . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/5d3da435-cd86-4b4d-ad95-255f2729535d/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2020_06_12_7767_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22chamber/hansardr/5d3da435-cd86-4b4d-ad95-255f2729535d/0043%22 .

McKie, A. (2021, April 22). Australia warns UK over essay mills hacking university websites. Times Higher Education . https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australia-warns-uk-over-essay-mills-hacking-university-websites .

New Zealand Education Act 2020 s. 393. E. (NZ). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/whole.html#LMS202497

New Zealand Education Act 1989 s. 292. E. (NZ).

O’Brien, C. (2017, May 12). Plan to prosecute firms who offer paid-for essays to students . Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/plan-to-prosecute-firms-who-offer-paid-for-essays-to-students-1.3007509 .

QQI. (2018). About Us . https://www.qqi.ie/Articles/Pages/About-Us.aspx

Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) (Amendment) Act 2019 (eISB) s. 43.A (IE.). Retrieved from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/32/section/15/enacted/en/html#sec15

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTE). (2017, May 15). Bruton outlines bill to tackle cheating in education system . https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/0515/875195-bruton-bill-cheating/

Stritch, D. (2019, May 22). Lessons from abroad on developing effective legislation. Dr Deirdre Stritch, provider approval and monitoring manager, QQI awards, quality and qualifications Ireland. In Westminster Higher Education Forum (Ed.), Keynote seminar: Contract cheating in higher education - prevention, detection, disruption and legislative options (pp. 46–49). Westminster Higher Education Forum.

Stritch, D. (2021, March 18). Supporting academic integrity – A view from Ireland: ENQA: Protecting and promoting academic integrity: How quality assurance agencies can take action . QQI. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/Academic-Integrity-The-View-From-Ireland-March-2021.pdf

Taylor, J. (2021, July 7). University regulator tries to block Australian students from using alleged cheating website: [TEQSA] wants 51 internet service providers to block access to Assignmenthelp4you.com . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/07/university-regulator-tries-to-block-australian-students-from-using-alleged-cheating-website-assignmenthelp4you-assignment-help-for-you

The Crown Prosecution Service. (2018, October 26). The code for crown prosecutors . https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors .

The Crown Prosecution Service. (2021, July 26). Jurisdiction . https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction .

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives. (2019a). TEQSA amendment (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019 No. 2019 (Education): A bill for an act to amend the TEQSA Act 2011, and for related purposes . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6483_first-reps/toc_pdf/19257b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives. (2019b). TEQSA amendment (prohibiting academic cheating service) bill 2019: Explanatory memorandum . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r6483_ems_d9f89ad0-f957-4e43-873a-bff12b21d878/upload_pdf/723541.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

UK Ministry of Justice Cabinet Office. (2015, December 2). Advice on introducing or amending criminal offences and estimating and agreeing implications for the criminal justice system . https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481126/creating-new-criminal-offences.pdf .

UK Parliament. (2020, June 4). Students: Plagiarism question for Department of Education. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-06-04/HL5328 .

UK Parliament – Hansard. (2021, February). Essay Mills (prohibition) volume 689: Debated on Wednesday 10 February 2021. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-02-10/debates/5E37B30F-EFD9-40A2-AA28-5D05327A7596/EssayMills(Prohibition)

Walsh, P., & McClaran, A. (2019, November 29). Memorandum of understanding between the TEQSA and the quality and qualifications Ireland (QQI). TEQSA - QQI. https://www.qqi.ie/Downloads/Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20betwen%20QQI%20and%20TEQSA%20(Australia)%20-%2029%20Nov%202019.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, University of Swansea, Swansea, Wales, UK

Michael Draper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Draper .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Sarah Elaine Eaton

School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Guy J. Curtis

The Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Brenda M. Stoesz

Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Joseph Clare

Discipline of Psychology and School of Law, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia

Kiata Rundle

Academic Integrity & Copyright, Assiniboine Community College, Brandon, MB, Canada

Josh Seeland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Draper, M. (2022). Essay Mills and Contract Cheating from a Legal Point of View. In: Eaton, S.E., Curtis, G.J., Stoesz, B.M., Clare, J., Rundle, K., Seeland, J. (eds) Contract Cheating in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_4

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-12679-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-12680-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research