CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Academic integrity and plagiarismWeb visibility and informetricsSpam and Phishing Detection

University ‘Pay-for-grades’: the bait and switch search engine optimization strategies of contract cheating websites in the United States

Open access
Daly, Timothy M., Ryan, James C.·2024·International Journal for Educational Integrity
DOI 10.1007/s40979-023-00148-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents the first systematic investigation into the search engine optimization practices of major contract cheating websites in the United States. From a business perspective, visibility in organic search engine results is considered one of the top client recruitment tools. The current understanding of student recruitment strategies by these companies remains largely unexplored in both academic literature and popular press. Replicating the business research practices used in the search engine optimization industry, comprehensive search engine ranking and traffic data was obtained for the 38 largest contract cheating websites in the US. The overall objective was to illuminate the strategies that these companies take to get their services at the top of the search results of as many students as possible – not just the relatively small proportion of students actively cheating. The results show that these companies dominate the search results for not just students searching to cheat, but also for naïve search efforts, when students are simply doing genuine research or classwork. These nefarious companies use highly sophisticated search engine manipulation strategies to bait naïve student searchers onto their sites, thus enabling the potential to switch them to cheaters. Higher education institutions, armed with the specific details provided in this study, can use the strategies outlined in the discussion to directly and negatively impact on the success of these contract cheating services.

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/s40979-023-00148-x

Cites

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?

  • Complex cases of fraud, such as contract cheating, continue to create unequal opportunities and outcomes.

    “complex cases of fraud, such as contract cheating, continue to create unequal opportunities and outcomes (Curtis & Clare, 2024; Daly & Ryan, 2024)”

    From Simple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: implications for inclusive education (2024) · cites this paper as Daly & Ryan, 2024

    The Contract cheating section defines the practice as submitting paid third-party work as one’s own and calls it a significant academic-integrity challenge. The paper does not establish that contract cheating creates unequal opportunities or outcomes; its findings concern how cheating websites reach students through search results. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Amigud A (2020) Cheaters on twitter: an analysis of engagement approaches of contract cheating services. Stud High Educ 45(3):692-705. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2018. 15642 · DOI
  2. Amigud A, Lancaster T (2019) 246 Reasons to cheat: an analysis of students' reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. Computers Educ 134:98-107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2019. 01. 017 · DOI
  3. Amigud A, Arnedo-Moreno J, Daradoumis T, Guerrero-Roldan A-E (2018) An integrative review of security and integrity strategies in an academic environment: current understanding and emerging perspectives. Com Sec 76:50-70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cose. 2018. 02. 021 · DOI
  4. Aswani R, Kar AK, Ilavarasan PV, Dwivedi YK (2018) Search engine marketing is not all gold: Insights from Twitter and SEOClerks. Int J Inf Manage 38(1):107-116. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2017. 07. 005 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Berman R, Katona Z (2013) The role of search engine optimization in search marketing. Mark Sci 32(4):644-651. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mksc. 2013. 0783 · DOI
  6. Bretag T, Harper R, Burton M, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K (2019) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian University Students. Stud High Educ 44(11):1837-1856. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2018. 14627 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the Successor to Plagiarism? Identifying the Usage of Contract Cheating Sites. Paper presented at the Second International Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference, Newcastle, June 19-21.
  8. Curtis GJ, Clare J (2017) How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics 15(2):115-124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10805-017-9278-x · DOI
  9. Curtis GJ, Tremayne K (2021) Is plagiarism really on the rise? results from four 5-yearly surveys. Stud High Educ 46(9):1816-1826. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2019. 17077 · DOI
  10. Dou W, Lim KH, Su C, Zhou N, Cui N (2010) Brand positioning strategy using search engine marketing. MIS Q 34(2):261- 279. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 20721 427 · DOI
  11. Ellis C, Zucker IM, Randall D (2018) The Infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. Int J Educ Integr 14(1):1-21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40979-017-0024-3 · DOI
  12. Foltýnek T, Králíková V (2018) Analysis of the contract cheating market in Czechia. Int J Educ Integr 14(1):1-15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40979-018-0027-8 · DOI
  13. Haas A, Unkel J (2017) Ranking versus reputation: perception and effects of search result credibility. Behav Inform Technol 36(12):1285-1298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01449 29X. 2017. 138116 · DOI
  14. Harper R, Bretag T, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K (2019) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian University Staff. Stud High Educ 44(11):1857-1873. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2018. 14627 · DOI
  15. He W, Wu H, Yan G, Akula V, Shen J (2015). A novel social media competitive analytics framework with sentiment bench- marks. Information & Management 52(7):801-812.
  16. Hernández B, Jiménez J, Martín MJ (2009) Key website factors in e-business strategy. Int J Inf Manage 29(5):362-371
  17. Johnson C, Davies R, Reddy M (2022) Using digital forensics in higher education to detect academic misconduct. Int J Educ Integr 18(1):12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40979-022-00104-1 · DOI
  18. Kaktiņš L (2018) Contract cheating advertisements: what they tell us about international students' attitudes to academic integrity. Ethics and Education 13(2):268-284. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17449 642. 2017. 14121 78 · DOI
  19. Lancaster T, Clarke R (2016) "Contract Cheating: The Outsourcing of Assessed Student Work. " Chapter 44 in Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by Tracey Bretag, 639-654. Singapore, Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-981-287- 079-7_ 17-1 · DOI
  20. Lancaster T (2019) Social Media enabled contract cheating. Can Perspect Acad Integ 2(2):7-24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11575/ cpai. v2i2. 68053 · DOI
  21. Lancaster T (2020) Academic discipline integration by contract cheating services and essay mills. Journal of Academic Ethics 18:115-127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10805-019-09357-x · DOI
  22. Lazear EP (1995) Bait and switch. J Polit Econ 103(4):813-830. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 262004 · DOI
  23. Medway D, Roper S, Gillooly L (2018) Contract cheating in UK Higher education: a covert investigation of essay mills. Br Edu Res J 44(3):393-418. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ berj. 3335 · DOI
  24. Rangaswamy A, Giles CL, Seres S (2009) A strategic perspective on search engines: Thought candies for practitioners and researchers. J Interact Mark 23(1):49-60
  25. Rigby D, Burton M, Balcombe K, Bateman I, Mulatu A (2015) Contract cheating & the market in essays. J Econ Behav Organ 111:23-37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jebo. 2014. 12. 019 · DOI
  26. Rowland S, Slade C, Wong K-S, Whiting B (2018) "Just Turn to Us": the persuasive features of contract cheating websites. Assess Eval High Educ 43(4):652-665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2017. 13919 48 · DOI
  27. Seeland J, Stoesz BM, Vogt L (2020) Preventing online shopping for completed assessments: Protecting students by blocking access to contract cheating websites on institutional networks. Canadian Perspect Acad Integ, 3(1), 55-69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11575/ cpai. v3i1. 70256. · DOI
  28. Shang J, Liu J, Jiang M, Ren X, Voss CR, Han J (2018) Automated phrase mining from massive text corpora. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 30(10):1825-1837. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TKDE. 2018. 28122 03 · DOI
  29. Sutherland-Smith W, Dullaghan K (2019) You don't always get what you pay for: User experiences of engaging with con- tract cheating sites. Assess Eval High Educ 44(8):1148-1162.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2019. 15760 · DOI
  30. Wang C, Marini L, Chin CL, Vance N, Donelson C, Meunier P, Yun JT (2019) Social Media Intelligence and Learning Environ- ment: an Open Source Framework for Social Media Data Collection, Analysis and Curation. In 2019 15th Interna- tional Conference on eScience (eScience) (pp. 252-261). IEEE. Daly and Ryan International Journal for Educational Integrity (2024) 20:1
  31. Weber H, Becker D, Hillmert S (2019) Information-seeking behaviour and academic success in higher education: Which search strategies matter for grade differences among university students and how does this relevance differ by field of study? High Educ 77(4):657-678. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734-018-0296-4 · DOI
  32. Yorke J, Sefcik L, Veeran-Colton T (2022) Contract cheating and blackmail: a risky business? Stud High Educ 47(1):53-66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2020. 17303 · DOI
  33. Yun JT, Duff BRL, Vargas PT, Sundaram H, Himelboim I (2020a) Computationally analyzing social media text for topics: a primer for advertising researchers. J Interact Advert 20(1):47-59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15252 019. 2019. 17008 · DOI
  34. Yun JT, Vance N, Wang C, Marini L, Troy J, Donelson C, Chin C-L, Henderson MD (2020b) The social media macroscope: a science gateway for research using social media data. Futur Gener Comput Syst 111:819-828. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. future. 2019. 10. 029 · DOI
  35. Zafarghandi AM, Khoshroo F, Barkat B (2012) An investigation of Iranian EFL masters students' perceptions of plagiarism. Int J Educ Integr 8(2):69-85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21913/ IJEI. v8i2. 811 · DOI

Authors
Daly, T. M., & Ryan, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Zayed University (AE)
  • Prince Mohammad Bin Salman College of Business and Entrepreneurship (SA)
Corresponding author
Daly, Timothy M.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal for Educational Integrity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-01-25
Volume
20
Issue
1
ISSN
1833-2595 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40979-023-00148-x
OpenAlex
W4391188008
Cited by
4
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal for Educational Integrity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
contract cheating, academic integrity, search engine optimization, search engine manipulation, student recruitment strategies, search traffic, higher education institutions

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