The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Developing Policies to Address Historic Contract Cheating and Misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Reimagining writing assessment for the AI era: a systematic review on balancing AI support and authentic skill growth (2026) · cites this paper as Lancaster et al., 2025
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Governance efficiency and upgrade pathways of international generative AI policies and regulations
Wang, X., Xie, F., & Liu, B. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103082 · Cited by 10
Abdellatif, M. S., Alshehri, M. A., Lamouchi, A., Rahmath, M., & Nemt-allah, M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809174
“…Hemingway Editor) for grammar and mechanical corrections; translation tools (DeepL, Google Translate) for cross-lingual support; and multimodal platforms (Canva, Quizlet) for visual design and vocabulary building (Amani and Bisriyah, 2025; Evmenova et al., 2024; Lancaster et al., 2025).”
Hurley, M., Casey, D., Morari, V., & Grimes, D. (2026) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2026.2614988
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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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