CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Academic integrity and plagiarismBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Detecting contract cheating in essay and report submissions: process, patterns, clues and conversations

Open access
Rogerson, Ann M.·2017·International Journal for Educational Integrity
DOI 10.1007/s40979-017-0021-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Detecting contract cheating in written submissions can be difficult beyond direct plagiarism detectable via technology. Successfully identifying potential cases of contract cheating in written work such as essays and reports is largely dependent on the experience of assessors and knowledge of student. It is further dependent on their familiarity with the patterns and clues evident in sections of body text and reference materials to identify irregularities. Consequently, some knowledge of what the patterns and clues look like is required. This paper documents how to identify some of the patterns and clues observed in essay and report submissions. Effective assessment design with specific contextual requirements make irregularities easier to detect and interpret. The irregularities identified were confirmed as instances of contract cheating through conversations held with postgraduate students. An essential element of the conversations was the evidence presented for discussion. Irregularities were noted on a pro-forma specifically developed for this purpose. Patterns identified include misrepresented bibliographic data, inappropriate references, irrelevant material and generalised text that did not address the assessment question or grading criteria. The validated patterns formed the basis of identifying potential instances of contract cheating in later submissions. Timely conversations with students before the end of semester are essential to determining whether the patterns and clues link to poor knowledge of academic writing conventions or classified as contract cheating necessitating the application of appropriate penalties under institutional policies and procedures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40979-017-0021-6

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Violations involving writers-for-hire or parents are difficult to detect and challenging to prove in university academic violation proceedings.

    “violations involving writers-for-hire or in some cases, the students' parents, are not only difficult to detect but challenging to prove in university academic violation proceedings (Campbell et al., 2000; Rogerson, 2017; Bretag et al., 2018; Smith, 2019).”

    From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Rogerson, 2017

    The Introduction (page unavailable) calls detecting work students did not fully author an ongoing challenge and includes outsourced work; it also says applying misconduct penalties becomes harder after grades are released. The paper discusses gathering evidence and speaking with students, but does not specifically address parents writing submissions or say that such violations are difficult to prove in university misconduct proceedings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2nd International Plagiarism Conference
  2. Dahl S (2007) Turnitin®: the student perspective on using plagiarism detection software. Act Learn High Educ 8(2):173-191
  3. Lancaster T, Clarke R (2007) Assessing contract cheating through auction sites-a computing perspective. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of 8th annual conference for information and computer sciences
  4. LaSalle RE (2009) The perception of detection, severity of punishment and the probability of cheating. J Forensic Studies in Accounting & Business 1(2):93-112
  5. Rogerson AM, Bretag T (2015) Developing the confidence to intervene. In: Paper presented at the 7APCEI 7th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity. Charles Sturt University, Albury

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rogerson, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Rogerson, Ann M.
ORCID
Rogerson, Ann M.
Venue
International Journal for Educational Integrity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-14
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
1833-2595 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40979-017-0021-6
OpenAlex
W2769786505
Cited by
93
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal for Educational Integrity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
Victoria University of Wellington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
contract cheating, academic integrity, essay scoring, report submission, plagiarism detection, assessment design, student dialogue, graduate students, academic writing conventions

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