The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, online learning has received more attention than ever before. One of the most challenging aspects of online education is the students' assessment since academic integrity could be violated due to various cheating behaviors in online examinations. Although a considerable number of literature reviews exist about online learning, there is no such review study to provide comprehensive insight into cheating motivations, cheating types, cheating detection, and cheating prevention in the online setting. The current study is a review of 58 publications about online cheating, published from January 2010 to February 2021. We present the categorization of the research and show topic trends in the field of online exam cheating. The study can be a valuable reference for educators and researchers working in the field of online learning to obtain a comprehensive view of cheating mitigation, detection, and prevention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Cheating on written assignments has also amplified by tailored online services (Noorbehbahani1 et al., 2022; Yazici et al., 2022)”
From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Noorbehbahani et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 · Cited by 13,262
A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009 · Cited by 616
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning
(2020) · doi:10.34190/jel · Cited by 615
Trends in Educational Research about e-Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2009–2018)
Berrocoso, J. V., Arroyo, M. D. C. G., Videla, C. G. B., & Cevallos, M. B. M. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12125153 · Cited by 587
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice
(2019) · Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice · doi:10.33423/jhetp · Cited by 556
Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring
Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033 · Cited by 301
Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses?.
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010) · Online journal of distance learning administration · Cited by 242
Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.004 · Cited by 237
Wei, X., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104097 · Cited by 232
Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams
Hylton, K., Levy, Y. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002 · Cited by 224
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Arnautovski, L. (2019). Face recognition technology in the exam identity authentication system - implementation concept. In 2nd International Scientific Conference MILCON’19 (pp. 51–56). Olsztyn, Poland.
- Bawarith, R., Basuhail, A., Fattouh, A., & Gamalel-din, P. S. (2017). E-exam Cheating Detection System. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8(4), 176–181. · DOI
- Cluskey, G. R. C. Jr, Ehlen, C. R., & Raiborn, M. H. (2011). Thwarting Online Exam Cheating without Proctor Supervision, 4, 1–7.
- Idemudia, S., Rohani, M. F., Siraj, M., & Othman, S. H. (2016). A Smart Approach of E-Exam Assessment Method Using Face Recognition to Address Identity Theft and Cheating. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 14(10), 515–522. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
- Jalali, K., & Noorbehbahani, F. (2017). An Automatic Method for Cheating Detection in Online Exams by Processing the Students Webcam Images. In 3rd Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology (E-Tech 2017), Tehran, Iran (pp. 1–6). Tehran, Iran.
- Kigwana, I., & Venter, H. (2016). Proposed high-level solutions to counter online examination fraud using digital forensic readiness techniques. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2016, 407–414.
- Weiner, J. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2017). A comparative Study of Online Remote Proctored Vs Onsite Proctored. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 18(1), 13–20.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boscardin, C. K., Gin, B., Golde, P. B., & Hauer, K. E. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005439 · Cited by 620
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370
“Online assessments, in particular, have highlighted the potential for increased cheating and academic misconduct [4,8–11] fueled by factors like anonymity, reduced supervision, and easier access to unauthorised resources during exams.”
Nikolic, S., Daniel, S., Haque, R., Belkina, M., Hassan, G. M., Grundy, S., Lyden, S., Neal, P., & Sandison, C. (2023) · European Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1080/03043797.2023.2213169 · Cited by 336
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Sušnjak, T., & McIntosh, T. R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060656 · Cited by 271
Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Higher Education Institutions: A Systems Approach
Katsamakas, E., Pavlov, O. V., & Saklad, R. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16146118 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A., & Aminazadeh, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Isfahan (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Noorbehbahani, Fakhroddin
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2022-03-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 8413-8460
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- PMC
- PMC8898996
- OpenAlex
- W4220695000
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 20
- FWCI
- 9.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
- Keywords
- academic integrity, online learning, cheating detection, cheating prevention, student assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
