Cited by 3Academic integrity and plagiarismLegal Issues in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Developing Policies to Address Historic Contract Cheating and Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Lancaster, Thomas, Glendinning, Irene, Dann, Sandie, Crockett, Robin, Draper, Michael·2025·Journal of Academic Writing

Abstract

When students submit written assignments for assessment, they are generally trusted to have completed these honestly, and to have benefitted from the opportunity to learn. Academic integrity breaches are sometimes detected during the assessment process. Some common examples of integrity breaches during students’ academic writing include contract cheating, the unauthorised use of GenAI technology for completing assignments, and using AI tools to disguise existing work so that it appears to be original. None of these are new phenomena. Processes and procedures should be in place for managing suspected academic misconduct cases detected during the assessment process. But what happens when academic misconduct is detected retrospectively, sometimes after a student has moved degree programmes or graduated? This position paper sets out the case for universities and other academic institutions having procedures in place to deal with historic academic misconduct. It provides examples of how institutions can become aware of misconduct, including through whistleblowing and through development of more effective detection software. The authors bring together legal and educational expertise to suggest considerations that individual institutions should make towards future policy development. The discussion considers that students must be supported and prepared for success, but that institutions cannot ignore the reputational risks associated with cases of historic misconduct.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18552/joaw.v15is1.1057

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • AI tools in academic writing fall into four functional categories: generative AI models, automated writing evaluation systems, translation tools, and multimodal platforms.

    “The tools identified fall into four functional categories: generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Copilot) for higher-order tasks like brainstorming and drafting; automated writing evaluation systems (Grammarly, ProWritingAid, Hemingway Editor) for grammar and mechanical corrections; translation tools (DeepL, Google Translate) for cross-lingual support; and multimodal platforms (Canva, Q”

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lancaster, T., Glendinning, I., Dann, S., Crockett, R., & Draper, M.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • University of Northampton (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Academic Writing
Published
2025-02-25
Volume
15
Issue
S1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
2225-8973 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407910996
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Academic Writing (publishedVersion)
  • NECTAR - Northampton Electronic Collection of Thesis and Research (University of Northampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
contract cheating, academic integrity, academic misconduct, whistleblowing, AI detection software, student support, institutional reputation, academic 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