36South African Journal of Science httpwww.sajs.co.zaVol.docx

36South African Journal of Science http://www.sajs.co.za
Volume 112 | Number 5/6
May/June 2016
Review Article Plagiarism and ghostwriting
Page 1 of 7
© 2016. The Author(s).
Published under a Creative
Commons Attribution Licence.
Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic
misconductAUTHORS:
Shawren Singh1
Dan Remenyi1
AFFILIATION:
1School of Computing, University
of South Africa, Roodepoort,
South Africa
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Shawren Singh
EMAIL:
[email protected]
POSTAL ADDRESS:
School of Computing, University
of South Africa, Cnr Christiaan

de Wet Road and Pioneer Ave,
Florida 1710, South Africa
DATES:
Received: 12 Aug. 2015
Revised: 12 Oct. 2015
Accepted: 21 Dec. 2015
KEYWORDS:
academic integrity;
contract cheating; essay mills;
university cheating
HOW TO CITE:
Singh S, Remenyi D. Plagiarism
and ghostwriting: The rise
in academic misconduct.
S Afr J Sci. 2016;112(5/6),
Art. #2015-0300, 7 pages.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/
sajs.2016/20150300
The aim of this paper is to review the current situation
regarding plagiarism and ghostwriting, and to stimulate
debate about how universities should respond to the rise in
these forms of academic misconduct. The
apparent upsurge in academic misconduct means that
universities today face one of the greatest challenges
to academic integrity they have had to deal with ever since the
university system came into existence some
800 years ago. Plagiarism and ghostwriting are undermining the
integrity of university degrees to an extent
not seen before. Academia and fraud are not strangers.
Universities have a long history of cheating of one

sort or another, often associated with examinations, but also
with research. In the past this cheating involved
activities such as smuggling notes (commonly called ‘crib
sheets’) into examinations, and consulting them
even under the watchful eyes of invigilators. It also involved
students obtaining sight of an examination paper
in advance. The fraudulent creation of research results has also
been an issue. However, in the 21st century,
the opportunities for cheating have exploded. This has resulted
in universities becoming more concerned
about ensuring the integrity of their examination processes and
the degrees they award. Our paper focuses
on cheating in the writing of dissertations or theses required at
undergraduate or postgraduate level, with
an emphasis on plagiarism and ghostwriting. We do not propose
a simple solution to these problems, as
preventing or stopping cheating is not just a matter of catching
the wrongdoers. Cheating is endogenous
to the current university education system, and needs to be
addressed in terms of not only prevention and
detection but also how people who are found to engage in such
misconduct are treated. We suggest that
creative ways of promoting learning would help to minimise
cheating at universities. It is also important to
ensure that the issue is discussed openly among students and
faculty staff.
Introduction
There have been some dramatic instances of academic fraud at
universities.1-3 Professors have been found to
have no credible academic credentials, having either
exaggerated or outright lied in their curriculum vitae.4-6 Vice-
chancellors have been accused of plagiarism7,8 or been found to
have plagiarised their theses.9 Laboratory directors
have been involved in the falsification of research findings.10-
12 However, such dramatic events, although interesting

and often newsworthy, are fortunately quite rare. What is more
concerning is the mundane matter of fraud or
cheating at the routine examination level. The main form of
cheating at university is inappropriate assistance in
examinations, or in the preparation of written work submitted
for evaluation.13
The extent of cheating at universities is hard to gauge.14-17
This is largely because the most common reaction once
cheating is exposed is that the institution becomes secretive.
Over the years, students have been found consulting
crib sheets or notes written on their skin, or hidden in pencil
boxes or even sandwiches – to mention only a few hiding
places. Students struggling to answer a question might also try
to glance at the answer sheet of a fellow student.
Another form of cheating occurs when students have been
informed about examination questions in advance.
Perhaps more seriously, students have sometimes employed
other people to actually sit their examinations. The
most famous culprit of this offence was the late Senator Edward
Kennedy, who paid a co-student and friend to
sit a Spanish examination in his place. The university spotted
the substitution and both students were expelled.18
However, despite the wide range of nefarious ways in which
students have been known to cheat the system, academics
often argue that traditionally there has been a low occurrence of
this type of behaviour. An accurate estimate of the
number of such incidents is almost impossible, as the only cases
reported are those in which individuals are caught.
Cheating in examinations is difficult. It is hard to smuggle
items into an examination hall and consult them unseen
– despite the watchful eye of an invigilator. Nonetheless, some
students try to do this. To counter the problem,

at certain universities some subjects are examined in ‘open
book’ exams, where the student may bring into the
examination room any texts he or she might like to consult. This
practice allows the student to refer to any material
he or she wishes during the examination. In such exams, the
application and interpretation of knowledge is tested,
and for this reason open-book exams are often regarded as a
superior form of test.
In many universities there has been a substantial increase in the
use of term papers, assignments, and dissertations
to evaluate the progress or knowledge development of students.
Such documents are produced by the student
outside of an examination environment. One reason for this
system is the now widespread belief in the value of
ongoing assessment instead of simply an end-of-term
examination. However, when this type of written work is
used for assessment, the system is especially vulnerable to
cheating.19 Because of this vulnerability, some older
academics insist that formal examinations remain the only
reliable method of student evaluation.
All forms of academic cheating are highly detrimental to any
university. Academic cheating undermines the good
name of the institution and calls into question the integrity of
both the faculty and students. There is every reason
for a university to take all forms of cheating seriously, and to
eliminate it wherever possible.
This paper focuses on two specific types of academic
misconduct, namely plagiarism and ghostwriting.
http://www.sajs.co.za
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5038-0724
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150300

May/June 2016
Inappropriate assistance in preparing written
work
There are several ways in which students can cheat in the
preparation
of written work. The two offences addressed in this paper are
plagiarism
and ghostwriting. Plagiarism has affected the academic
community
for centuries,20 and allegations of plagiarism have been made
against
certain famous academics, including Galileo and Newton.21 By
contrast,
ghostwriting in academia appears to be a relatively modern
phenomenon,
perhaps only a few hundred years old.
Stavisky22 states that there has been a long tradition of
plagiarism in
American universities, fostered by fraternity groups and dating
back to the
19th century. Fraternity files have been used to recycle written
academic
work. Stavisky also states that in the 1940s, advertisements
appeared
weekly in a prestigious New York newspaper, advertising
ghostwriting
services – which included producing dissertations, theses, and
term

papers. Stavisky goes on to describe how this practice
proliferated in
the 1960s and 1970s. With the arrival of the Internet,
ghostwriting has
become a global industry. The terms ‘paper mill’ and ‘essay
mill’ are
often used to describe this industry.
Plagiarism and ghostwriting, although different, have the same
outcome: the
student presents fraudulent academic work that is purportedly
his or her
own. In fact, it is the creation of another person or persons. The
sections
below discuss plagiarism and ghostwriting separately and in
greater detail.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism refers to the use of other people’s ideas and words
without
giving the original author appropriate acknowledgement.23,24
If ideas are
used in an essay or dissertation that have been found in the
published
work of another author, it is academic misconduct not to
specifically
acknowledge the original source. The acknowledgement must
follow the
rules of the referencing system employed in the work. Although
the use
of ideas without acknowledging them is an offence, it is even
worse if the
actual words of other authors are copied without
acknowledgement. This
principle sometimes leads to debate about how many words can
be cited

without incurring an accusation of plagiarism. Guidelines such
as three,
four, or five words are sometimes quoted. However, there is no
simple
answer to this question, and it is generally agreed that even a
small
number of words reproduced from another text need to be
attributed.
There are several reasons why plagiarism is unacceptable in
academic
writing. The Penn State University website25 lists a number of
reasons,
which include:
• Plagiarism committed intentionally is an act of deceit and may
even
constitute fraud.
• The plagiarist denies him or herself ‘the opportunity to learn
and
practice’ the skills of academic research.
• A plagiarist does not avail him or herself of the ‘opportunity
to
receive honest feedback’ on his or her academic skills.
• The plagiarist opens him or herself to future enquiry into his
or her
‘integrity and performance in general’.
Clearly plagiarism is unacceptable. Universities generally state
in their
regulations that plagiarism is a disciplinary offence.26
However, it is not
always easy to ascertain what sort of penalty will be imposed on

authors
who are found to have plagiarised.
In recent decades, the Internet has become a common tool for
academic
research, and this has enabled plagiarism to flourish on a large
scale.27-29
It is impossible to estimate the exact extent of online
plagiarism, but
there are regular reports of students’ work being found to
contain large
passages copied from other people’s works by cut-and-paste
methods,
without any attribution. In 2015, Adams reported that in the
United
Kingdom, ‘in the past 4 years more than 58 000 undergraduates
have
been investigated by their universities for plagiarism’30. Some
of these
cases involve whole essays being copied and fraudulently
presented
under the name of the student being assessed.
Because of this situation, computer-based plagiarism detection
methods
and tools have become extremely popular with university
faculty and
administrative staff.31 The market leader, Turnitin.com, claims
to have
10 000 clients working in 135 countries, and this product alone
is
estimated as being used to check 40 million academic papers
each year.
Using anti-plagiarism software makes it relatively easy to detect
and
quantify how much plagiarism appears in a piece of academic

work.
However, this type of checking may be considered to be a ‘band
aid’ or
‘sticky plaster’ placed on a wound when perhaps a more medical
and
surgical intervention is actually required.32
When plagiarism is suspected and this suspicion is supported by
the software results, the issue arises of how to deal with the
offence.
University regulations specifically forbid plagiarism and may
prescribe the
need to refer such behaviour to a disciplinary procedure.
However, such
disciplinary action does not always happen.33 Sometimes
plagiarism is
treated by giving the student a mark of zero for the work
submitted.
Sometimes the student is required to resubmit a new version of
the work.
In other words, formal disciplinary action is not automatically
invoked.34
The process of university disciplinary action can be a long and
costly
procedure, and universities are often reluctant to follow this
course on
the grounds of the resources a formal plagiarism enquiry would
require.
Mathews35 quotes an academic, who wished to remain
anonymous, as
saying, ‘I’m ashamed to admit it but you simply don’t have the
time to
launch a plagiarism case.’
If this is indeed the case, is the university not implicitly
condoning

plagiarism? In any event, plagiarism is frequently regarded
more as a
misdemeanour than a felony. Nonetheless, the practice of
plagiarism
undermines the integrity of the academic process, and calls into
question the quality of education that is said to be evident in the
holding
of a degree.
It has been suggested that plagiarism is rife in certain cultures,
and in
developing countries in particular.36 This may be true, but the
challenge
is certainly not absent from western culture or universities.
Ghostwriting
Ghostwriting is the practice of hiring a writer (or writers) to
produce a
piece of work that follows a predefined style, and none of the
original
writing credit is attributed to the ghostwriter. The practice of
ghostwriting
has long existed in the field of literature. Related practices
occur in
other forms of the arts, including music composition, singing,
and the
visual arts. In the university context, all subjects are to some
extent
vulnerable to plagiarism. But with regard to ghostwriting,
computational
sciences are particularly vulnerable. Specialist websites can
produce
programming code for computer science students.37
Undergraduates
have been known to pass on, or indeed sell, their laboratory
journals to

other students – which in some cases have been copied verbatim
the
following year.
Ghostwriting has traditionally been associated with famous
individuals
who have contracted someone else to produce a work in the
field of
literature, perhaps an autobiography, because they do not have
the time
or skills to complete the task themselves.38 The ghostwriter
produces
the work for an agreed fee. This is a legal and sustainable
business,
and many ghostwriting agencies have a substantial history of
success.39
In pre-Internet days, a student struggling to complete an essay
or
assignment might have asked a friend or family member (or
another
individual) to help write a piece of the work. Sometimes money
changed
hands, but not always. It would generally have been difficult to
find
someone to do this type of work and the incidence of such
collusion
would have been low. The Internet has changed things, and a
large
number of essay-writing services are now offered on the web.40
Some providers offer a full range of services, from writing a
simple essay
to producing a doctoral thesis. Furthermore, the purchaser is
able to
specify if he or she wants an essay to be written to a particular

standard
of excellence, such as being good enough to obtain a first class
or a
second class grade. Some of these services respond quickly,
offering a
24-hour turnaround time for an essay. Of course, the fee asked
for the
Page 2 of 7
May/June 2016
production of one of these essays depends on the standard
required
and the time-frames for delivery.27 The academic networks
these
organisations purport to have established suggest that a large
number
of competent academics are willing to earn money from the
process of
defrauding, or at least undermining, the examination process.
When ghostwriting services first appeared on the Internet, they
were
relatively unsophisticated and a number of ghostwritten essays
were
caught by anti-plagiarism software. However, today the
suppliers of
these essays claim they can produce work that will not be

detected
by such software. Although there are programs that claim to be
able
to identify authors by their style using the principles of
stylometry, a
competently-produced piece of work by a ghostwriter would be
original
and thus would not be detected by software alone.
The range of organisations offering ghostwriting services is
impressive.
A recent Google search produced over 4.6 million references to
these
services in less than half a second. A number of these
organisations
claim that they employ graduates and faculty members from the
best
universities. It has been estimated that in the United Kingdom
alone,
more than GBP200 million is spent annually on these
services.41
The classification of this type of academic misconduct is not
always easy
to define. Ghostwriting differs from plagiarism, although this
point is not
universally agreed on. For example, University College London
(UCL) states
that plagiarism includes ‘turning in someone else’s work as
your own’.42
Plagiarism is sometimes defined as theft, and the word
‘plagiarism’ comes
from the Latin word for kidnapping. But ghostwriting is
different; there is
no direct theft involved. It is rather a question of
misrepresentation or lying

about the authorship of the work. However, this type of offence
could be
considered an extreme form of plagiarism at least. Some
academics feel
that ghostwriting is considerably more serious than plagiarism
with regard
to the degree of violation of academic trust.
Tomard39 suggests that there are three distinct categories of
students
who employ ghostwriters. The first are students whose
command of
the English language is not sufficient to be able to write a
competent
research report. The second group includes students who have
not
been able to grasp the detail of the processes involved in
academic
research methodology, and therefore need an expert in the field
of study
to write up the research. The third group consists of students
who are
both uninterested in their studies and sufficiently well-funded to
be able
to afford the high fees asked by ghostwriting agencies. Being
able to
identify these groups should facilitate the university in creating
policies
to counter this type of academic misconduct.
When a dissertation is presented to a university, traditionally it
has
to be accompanied by a Certificate of Own Work.43 This
certificate is
sometimes a simple one-sentence statement, signed by the
student.

If it transpires that the statement was false, that renders the
work null
and void and a degree would not be awarded. If a degree has
already
been awarded and it is subsequently found out that the student
did not
perform the work, the degree may be withdrawn. However,
certification
of authenticity has generally not been required for other work
submitted,
such as essays or term papers. Perhaps such certification should
now
become a routine requirement.
If a piece of academic work has been ghostwritten, this can
generally be
detected only if the evaluator is personally acquainted with the
student’s
level of subject knowledge and his or her natural writing style.
Extent of cheating
As noted earlier, it is difficult to give an estimation of the
extent to which
cheating occurs. However, it is clear that the ghostwriting
industry is
highly active and appears to be expanding. This trend is
certainly cause
for concern.
Universities are often quite secretive about issues concerning
discipline, or
in fact any legal action in which they are involved.
Documentary filmmakers
have suggested that there are a growing number of students
taking action
against universities on a wide range of issues. Most of these

cases have to
do with universities not living up to promises they made to
students before
the students registered. However, in at least one case on record,
a student
sued a university after he was accused of plagiarism.44 He
argued that
the university had not appropriately informed him that
plagiarism would
be regarded as academic misconduct, and therefore he could not
be held
responsible for an activity he did not realise was regarded as
misconduct.
It is hard to imagine how anyone could have come through
schooling in
the western world, including the early years of university,
without having
the issue of plagiarism fully explained to them.
The special case of dissertations
Formerly, dissertations and theses were an academic activity
that was
required only at the level of masters and doctoral degrees.
However, this
has changed, and dissertations are now often required at
undergraduate
level.45,46 As a material piece of work that is researched and
written
almost wholly by the student, sometimes without much direct
assistance
by academic staff, the dissertation has become an important part
of
many degrees.
Students often struggle with their dissertations, which can be a

signi-
ficant challenge. Ranging in length from perhaps as few as 5000
words
at undergraduate level to as many as 50 000 words at masters
level
and 80 000 words at doctorate level, the dissertation requires a
material
amount of focused worked over an extended period of time.
Sometimes at master’s level, and even more so at doctoral level,
many
universities experience a high rate of non-completion of this
type of
work.47-49 For a number of reasons, students are not able to
complete
all the work required for a dissertation. This happens more
frequently
among part-time students, especially at doctoral level. For this
reason
it has been suggested by some academics that a doctoral degree
candidate could outsource some of the work required. However,
this
leads to some challenging questions and issues.
Attitudes towards outsourcing differ considerably from
university to
university. Some universities take the stance that virtually
nothing should
be outsourced, whereas others are far more relaxed. The reality
is that
students have long outsourced certain aspects of their
dissertations. For
many decades and probably for most of the 20th century,
students have
had their dissertations typed by others, normally professional
typists.

When word processors became commonplace and desktop
typesetting
became available, students had their work professionally
produced
without any questions being raised.
However, there are a number of other aspects of the research
work
that outsiders now offer to undertake for students, and which
are not
as acceptable as typing and typesetting. For example, it has
been
proposed that compiling the literature review, collecting the
data, and
analysing the results are all activities that could be outsourced.
These
are important doctoral-level activities, and as such are central to
the
intellectual development of the student. Having these tasks
performed
by anyone other than the student (i.e. the degree candidate)
undermines
the objective of acquiring the degree. It is difficult to see how
this level of
outsourcing could be acceptable to the academic world.
Another aspect of dissertations also presents a major problem,
although it might not be regarded as so obviously problematic
as the
issues described above. That is the actual writing of the
dissertation.
Frequently students are not accomplished academic writers, and
the
way they attempt to present the arguments behind their research
can be
difficult to understand. Traditionally a supervisor would give

the student
guidance with regard to academic writing style, and in some
cases
supervisors would actually edit the text of the dissertation.
However,
some universities explicitly forbid supervisors to do this, and
the result
has been that students now tend to hire freelance editors. In
some cases,
the amount of work undertaken by these editors has amounted to
having
the dissertation ghostwritten.
At the same time, as mentioned earlier, the ghostwriting
industry now
offers the writing of an entire dissertation as part of its product
range.
Some of the claims are startling, as they suggest an entire
dissertation
can be produced within a matter of weeks – if not days. It is
hard to
imagine what calibre of university would accept a student who
presents
a dissertation, even at undergraduate level, without having had a
number
Page 3 of 7
May/June 2016

of consultations with his or her supervisor. In the case of
masters or
doctoral degrees, universities require a number of years of
supervised
research before a final dissertation can be submitted or
considered.
Nonetheless, the fact that dissertations are being offered for
sale
by ghostwriting enterprises strongly suggests that there are
indeed
universities that accept this type of written work and award
degrees on
the basis of ghostwritten dissertations.
The ethics of the ghostwriter
It does not appear that ghostwriters have much, if any, ethical
concern
about the work they do. Ghostwriting agencies boast that they
hire only
writers with the highest qualifications from the best
universities, and
judging from the apparent satisfaction of their clients this does
seem
to be the case. One ghostwriter who decided to write
anonymously for
The Times Higher Education50 stated:
I don’t justify the work I’m doing on ethical
grounds. While what I do is not illegal, it does
enable others to break rules and suffer the
consequences if they are caught. The agencies
maintain the image of legitimate businesses:
many do not even refer to ‘cheating’. You are
simply ‘helping’ with an assignment (making up,
as one agency argues, for the university’s failure

to provide adequate tuition). While I’m happy
to acknowledge that I am dependent on clients’
continued cheating, this doesn’t mean I am not
conscious that my job is a symptom of an illness, a
fracture, in our universities.
It is challenging not to sympathise with the argument that the
university
system is ‘fractured’. However, the argument used by many
essay mills
– that they are only ‘helping’ students – is at best
disingenuous.36 This is
a for-profit industry that operates within the law but exhibits
little concern
about the morality of its activity.51
Interestingly, the same ghostwriter quoted above50 also
commented that:
I stay away from applied fields – it is my only ethical
standard as a ghost writer. I will not help a nurse to
qualify on false pretences: who knows, it might be
my parents who find themselves in their care.
This is an interesting admission of the impropriety involved in
the act
of ghostwriting.
The reaction of the universities
The issue of plagiarism and ghostwriting is of critical
importance to
universities for at least two reasons. The first is that these types
of
misconduct discredit the degrees that are awarded. If plagiarism
and
ghostwriting are perceived as being rife at a particular

university, this is
a disincentive to anyone who desires a robust qualification to
attend that
institution. The second reason is that it is unfair for a student to
obtain
credit for work he or she did not actually do. Having the money
to buy
completed academic work does not enhance the intellectual
capability
of the student – as the holding of a degree is supposed to
indicate.
Furthermore, the consequence of such misconduct is that honest
students are placed at a disadvantage.
With regard to plagiarism, in general universities have reacted
rather
slowly and with some trepidation. A few years ago, when
plagiarism
was suspected in a master’s degree dissertation by an examiner
and the
use of anti-plagiarism software was suggested, the student’s
supervisor
might have exclaimed, ‘Are you impugning the integrity of my
student?’
Fortunately, those days are past and most universities now
require
dissertations to be submitted both electronically and in hard
copy (i.e. on
paper). Nonetheless, the question of what action to take against
people
who are found to be plagiarists has not been answered.
Ghostwriting is, in a sense, a more difficult issue than
plagiarism. The
outright purchasing of essays, term papers, and dissertations is
clearly

an act of fraud. It would be unwise for a university to do
anything less than
take the most severe disciplinary action. But in some cases,
obtaining
help from an informal mentor could come quite close to
ghostwriting,
and penalising this activity could present difficulties. Perhaps
the real
issue is that universities have been, and still are, focused on
catching
misconduct after it has occurred instead of preventing it. Is
there really
any way of preventing these types of cheating? The answer is an
unreserved ‘yes’. How this can be done is addressed below,
under the
subheading ‘Prevention and detection’.
The university as a fractured institution
In discussing how universities have become fractured, it is
necessary
to bear in mind the exceptional pressures these institutions have
had
to face in recent years. Since the mid-1990s many universities
have
been expected to deliver what is sometimes referred to as ‘mass
education’.52,53 This term is not well defined but its general
meaning is
clear: education has to be made available to large numbers of
students.
At the same time, the resources made available to universities
have
not correspondingly increased. Class sizes have increased, with
a
concomitant unfavourable shift in the ratio of students to

lecturers. In
some cases, lecturers no longer grade the work of their students
and
this task is sub-contracted to either teaching assistants or even
to
outside contractors. In addition, a greater number of students
from
other countries, who may have inadequate command of English,
are
being admitted to degree courses at English-medium
universities. These
factors have made the relationship between faculty and students
more
challenging, as illustrated by the following remarkable
statement made
by the anonymous ghostwriter50:
I operate on the assumption that the student
I’m working for will have little or no personal
interaction with academic staff. This means there
is only a small likelihood that the lecturer who sets
and marks the questions will be familiar with the
student’s style of writing.
If this is a correct assessment of the situation, and there is
prima facie
evidence to suggest that it is, then the universities for which
this is true
are not performing their expected function.
The American publication The Chronicle of Higher Education
interviewed
a ghostwriter who remarked as follows54:
You’ve never heard of me, but there’s a good
chance that you’ve read some of my work. I’m a

hired gun, a doctor of everything, an academic
mercenary. My customers are your students. I
promise you that. Somebody in your classroom
uses a service that you can’t detect, that you can’t
defend against, that you may not even know exists.
Matthews similarly reflected on ghostwriters’ services as
follows35:
There are also concerns that in an age of mass
higher education and high student-to-staff ratios,
lecturers are less able to get to know their students’
work, making this form of cheating more difficult
to detect. And there are fears that the pressures of
the job might encourage some academics to turn
a blind eye to the practice. But perhaps the most
important question is whether it is possible to
prevent this form of cheating in the first place.
It is clear that universities are not addressing this subject with
the energy or
commitment one might expect when such important issues are at
stake.
The function of universities
The purpose of a university is not only to communicate and test
students’
knowledge but also to inspire them to become lifelong
learners.55,56 This
means there should be an onus on the university to help students
realise that
engaging with the subject matter is interesting, enjoyable and
rewarding. If
these positive experiences are achieved, learning should occur
naturally and
students should become well-informed in their fields of study.

If this were the
case, there would be little (or less) motivation for anyone to
cheat.
Page 4 of 7
May/June 2016
Although some academics would argue that they already take
this
approach to teaching, in reality most lecturers present fairly
routine
material, and students are expected to learn and to reproduce it
in rather
unimaginative ways – either during examinations or in essays,
term
papers, and even dissertations. This means the evaluation
processes in
universities are often a test of one’s memory of material that
has been
offered for the purposes of learning in a relatively structured
fashion.
When this approach is combined with large numbers of students,
the
temptation to engage in plagiarism or use ghostwriters appears
to offer
a solution to some students.
Prevention and detection

Some universities have taken the view that plagiarism and
ghostwriting
can be prevented by adequate detection methods and the
imposition
of appropriate penalties. For this reason, anti-plagiarism
software has
become a large business sector. The penalties imposed by unive-
rsities range from requiring the student to resubmit the piece of
work to suspending or even expelling him or her from the
university.
However, universities do not easily impose suspensions and
expulsions.
Students sometimes face only a rebuke and have to resubmit
their
work. Countering plagiarism in this half-hearted manner may,
however,
produce an ‘arms-race’ mentality, so that those who facilitate
students’
cheating will try to create increasingly clever ways of avoiding
anti-
plagiarism software. A better approach is to reassess the
university’s
attitude to teaching and learning.
The New Zealand Government has produced an interesting set
of
guidelines for the effective prevention and detection of
academic fraud.57
The approach is intended to create awareness of the potential
problems
of academic fraud, and to continually remind students about
how
unacceptable the practice is. It is then necessary for staff to
engage
continually with their students and to be on the lookout for any
surprising

changes in their performance. This means getting to know the
students
well. All of these suggestions are welcome, but they are time-
consuming
to put into practice. In general, academics regard themselves as
having a
full workload without taking on any extra engagements or
responsibilities.
Implementing the types of policies suggested in the New
Zealand
guidelines represents a significant move away from present
general
practice. The cost of such a transformation would be regarded
by
many to be a heavy burden on the financial resources of
educational
institutions. In addition, not all academics would necessarily
welcome
such a change. There is little doubt that many academics are
largely
comfortable with the present system.
With regard to ensuring the integrity of a dissertation, the issue
is one of
adequate supervision. If a programme of careful supervision is
in place,
there should be relatively little opportunity for plagiarism to
escape
unnoticed in the writing of a dissertation. To a large extent, a
dissertation
should be almost co-created by a student and his or her
supervisor, with
the student doing the work and the supervisor keeping a close
eye on
what is happening step-by-step.

With regard to ghostwriting, there should be almost no
opportunity for a
student to pass off a piece of work produced in this way. If the
supervisor
does not know the student well enough to be able to
immediately detect
that a written submission is inauthentic, the supervisor is not
actually
doing the job adequately. Unfortunately, some universities do
not
allocate sufficient time to supervisors for them to be able to get
to know
their students well enough; consequently, they may indeed be
unable to
detect if the work submitted has been written by someone else.
Summary and conclusion
This paper has reviewed the current situation with regard to
plagiarism
and ghostwriting at university level. The objective of the
discussion
was to stimulate debate as to how universities should react to
these
types of academic misconduct. (The paper has deliberately
avoided
addressing how these problems may be exaggerated in distance
learning
or e-Learning university programmes.)
The number of students who plagiarise or use ghostwriters
appears
to be on the increase. Although as a percentage of the entire
student
population, the number of those who engage in academic
misconduct

is believed to be small, even that small percentage represents a
large
number of students in absolute terms. This is cause for concern.
If
cheaters manage to ‘beat the system’ and obtain a degree they
have not
earned through their own academic performance, these
fraudsters would
represent a significant threat to the integrity of the relevant
department,
faculty, and university – indeed, to the whole notion of higher
education.
Plagiarism and ghostwriting must be eliminated to the fullest
extent
possible, because these practices are fundamentally unfair to
honest
students who rely on their own intellectual abilities to create the
academic
work required of them.
In general, plagiarism is a substantial and unwelcome
misconduct, but
it tends to be relatively easily identifiable. However, as it is
regarded
a form of academic fraud, there should be a material penalty
paid by
those who are found to engage in this behaviour. Although
universities
are in a position to impose such penalties, they do not appear to
do so
adequately and effectively, or often enough.
The use of a ghostwriter is an offence for which a greater
penalty should
be paid. Although ghostwriting is not illegal, lying about the

authorship
of a piece of work is potentially fraudulent. Ghostwriting
cannot be easily
detected by software in the same way as plagiarism can. There
are some
products that employ stylometry, and these may be of help and
could
be utilised by universities. However, ghostwriting is best
detected by
lecturers having personal knowledge of the capabilities of their
students.
Introducing a greater number of oral examinations could quickly
and
easily eliminate the entire issue of ghostwriting. Unfortunately,
it
would also create a substantial workload, which the current
university
examination system is ill-equipped to deal with.
Nonetheless, the overall approach of identifying academic
misconduct
and imposing penalties is unlikely in itself to solve the problem.
What
is really required is a new attitude to prevention. This would
involve
creating learning environments in universities that would invite
students
to become highly engaged with their subject material, and to
express their
creativity in such a way that it would be apparent who has
succeeded
in the learning process and who has not. Students who have
succeeded
should be valued and rewarded with an appropriate degree,
whereas
those who do not master the process will be deemed to have

failed.
With regard to misconduct at the dissertation level, it should
not be a
major problem for supervisors who are sufficiently engaged
with their
students to be able to detect misconduct. Most supervisors have
access
to anti-plagiarism software, and it is a simple matter to pass
submitted
work through such an analysis. On the question of ghostwriting,
although a supervisor should expect the writing style of a
student to
improve significantly during the course of producing a
dissertation, an
extraordinary level of improvement should become the subject
of an
enquiry and maybe even an investigation. There needs to be a
severe
penalty for those who engage in this type of misconduct; the
treatment
of serious academic misconduct must be sufficiently firm to
tackle the
problem effectively.
Finally, it is also important for the issue of plagiarism and
ghostwriting to
be discussed more openly and regularly within universities.
There might
even be certain proven or known incidents where the
transgressors
should be named and shamed.
Authors’ contributions
Both authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr
Filistea
Naude from the Unisa Science Campus Library.
References
1. Retraction Watch [homepage on the Internet]. No date [cited
2015 Jul 28].
Available from: http://retractionwatch.com/
Page 5 of 7
http://retractionwatch.com
May/June 2016
2. Bhattacharjee Y. The mind of a con man. New York Times.
2013
April 26 [cited 2015 July 28]. Available from:
http://www.nytimes.
com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-
fraud.
html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
3. Honig B, Bedi A. The fox in the hen house: A critical
examination of plagiarism
among members of the academy of management. Acad Manag
Learn Edu.
2012;11(1):101–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0084

4. Lewin T. Dean at M.I.T. resigns, ending a 28-year lie. New
York Times.
2007 April 27 [cited 2015 July 28]. Available from:
http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/04/27/us/27mit.html
5. Farrell EF. California poet laureate admits to lie on résumé.
Chronicle of Higher
Education. 2002;49(12).
6. Flynn NS. UCD inquiry to study vetting practices. The Irish
Times. 2001
November 13 [cited 2015 Aug 04]. Available from:
http://www.irishtimes.
com/news/ucd-inquiry-to-study-vetting-practices-1.336913
7. Guha A. Vice-Chancellors are not angels. Frontier.
2011;43(45); May 22–28
[cited 2016 May 17]. Available from:
http://frontierweekly.com/archive/vol-
number/vol/vol-43-2010-11/vol-43-45/vicechanellors-43-45.pdf
8. Monash head leaves over plagiarism charge. The Guardian.
2002 July
18 [cited 2015 Jul 28]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/
education/2002/jul/18/highereducation.uk
9. Rodan P. A modest victory for academic values: The demise
of David
Robinson. Australian Universities’ Review. 2004;46(2):16–22.
10. Columbia University. The cloning scandal of Hwang Woo-
Suk [article on the
Internet]. c2015 [cited 2015 Jul 28]. Available from:

http://stemcellbioethics.
wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Cloning+Scandal+of+Hwang+
Woo-Suk
11. McNeill D. In Japan, research scandal prompts questions.
The Chronicle of
Higher Education. 2014 June 30 [cited 2015 Jul 28]. Available
from: http://
chronicle.com/ar ticle/In-Japan-Research-
Scandal/147417/?cid=at&utm_
source=at&utm_medium=en
12. Office of Research Integrity. Case summaries [article on the
Internet]. c2015
[cited 2015 Jul 28]. Available from:
https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary
13. Papp R, Wertz MH. Academic integrity violations: Isolated
problems or
epidemic? In: SAIS 2005 Proceedings; 2005 February 25–26;
Savannah,
GA, USA. Available from:
http://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2005/30/?utm_
source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsais2005%2F30&utm_medium=PDF
&utm_
campaign=PDFCoverPages
14. Sheard J, Dick M, Markham S, Macdonald I, Walsh M.
Cheating and
plagiarism: Perceptions and practices of first year IT students.
ACM SIGCSE
Bulletin. 2002;34(3):183–187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/637610.544468
15. Thomas A, De Bruin GP. Plagiarism in South African
management journals.

S Afr J Sci. 2015;111(1/2), Art. #2014-0017, 3 pages.
http://dx.doi.
org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140017
16. Goveneder P. Universities battle a rising tide of cheating.
Time Live. 2014
August 17. Available from:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/17/
universities-battle-a-rising-tide-of-cheating1
17. The good, the bad, and the ugly. S Afr J Sci.
2003;99(9/10):402–403.
18. LeBlanc S. Harvard to honor Ted Kennedy, once expelled
for cheating.
CNSNews.com. 2008 December 01. Available from:
http://cnsnews.com/
news/article/harvard-honor-ted-kennedy-once-expelled-cheating
19. Wallace MJ, Newton PM. Turnaround time and market
capacity in contract
cheating. Educ Stud. 2014;40(2):233–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305
5698.2014.889597
20. George JF, Davison RM, Heales J, Munro M. Report of the
ad hoc committee
on member misconduct to the AIS Council. Communications of
the
Association for Information Systems. 2003;11(1):2.
21. Reston J. Galileo: A life. Washington: Beard Books; 2000.
22. Stavisky LP. Term paper ‘mills’, academic plagiarism, and
state regulation. Pol
Sci Quart. 1973:445–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2148993

23. Clarke R. Plagiarism by academics: More complex than it
seems. J Assoc Inf
Systems. 2006;7(2):5.
24. Randall M. Pragmatic plagiarism: Authorship, profit, and
power. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press; 2001.
25. PennState. Why plagiarism is wrong [article on the
Internet]. c2015 [cited
2015 Sep 22]. Available from:
http://tlt.psu.edu/plagiarism/student-tutorial/
why-plagiarism-is-wrong/
26. University of Oxford. Plagiarism [homepage on the
Internet]. No date [cited
2015 Sep 22]. Available from:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/
guidance/skills/plagiarism
27. Singh S. The zombie doctorate. In: Proceedings of the 14th
European
Conference on Research Methodology for Business and
Management Studies;
2015 June 11–12; Valletta, Malta. Reading, UK: Academic
Conferences and
Publishing International Ltd; 2015.
28. Hallak J, Poisson M. Corrupt schools, corrupt universities:
What can be
done? Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Education
Planning; 2007.
29. Richards D, Busch P, Germanou D, editors. Elearning
promoting plagiarism or

honesty? In: PACIS 2011 Proceedings; 2011 July 7–11;
Brisbane, Australia.
Available from: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/
30. Adams R. Cheating found to be rife in British schools and
universities. The
Guardian. 2015 June 15. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/
education/2015/jun/15/cheating-rife-in-uk-education-system-
dispatches-
investigation-shows
31. Roberts J, Wasieleski D. The contemporary plagiarist: The
roles of technology
and moral development. In: ICIS 2011 Proceedings; 2011 Dec
4–7; Shanghai,
China. Available from:
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/
IScurriculum/9
32. Warn J. Plagiarism software: No magic bullet! High Educ
Res Dev.
2006;25(02):195–208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610438
33. Thomas A, De Bruin GP. Student academic dishonesty:
What do academics
think and do, and what are the barriers to action? Afr J Bus
Ethics.
2012;6(1):13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1817-7417.104698
34. Fuzile B. Plagiarism cases rock Fort Hare. Times Live. 2013
April 09. Available
from:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/04/09/plagiarism-
cases-

rock-fort-hare
35. Matthews D. Essay mills: University course work to order.
Times
Higher Education. 2013 October 10. Available from:
https://www.
timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/essay-mills-university-
course-work-to-
order/2007934.article?page=0%2C1
36. Matthews D. East Asia has ‘toxic academic culture’. Times
Higher Education.
2015 September 07. Available from:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/
news/east-asia-has-%E2%80%98toxic-academic-
culture%E2%80%99
37. BESTGhostWriters. Programming ghostwriter [homepage on
the Internet]. No
date [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from:
http://www.bestghostwriters.net/
programming-ghostwriter/
38. PLoS. Ghostwriting collection [homepage on the Internet].
No date [cited
2015 Jul 28]. Available from:
http://collections.plos.org/ghostwriting
39. Tomar DA. Detecting and deterring ghostwritten papers: A
guide to best
practices [article on the Internet]. c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 04].
Available from:
http://www.thebestschools.org/resources/detecting-deterring-
ghostwritten-
papers-best-practices/

40. Auger GA. Missing citations, bulking biographies, and
unethical collaboration:
Types of cheating among public relations majors. Journal Mass
Comm Educat.
2013;68(2):150–165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077695813476953
41. Taylor M, Butt R. How do you make £1.6m a year and drive
a Ferrari A: Sell
essays for £400. The Guardian. 2006 July 29. Available from:
http://www.
theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/29/highereducation.education
42. University College London. Plagiarism [homepage on the
Internet]. No date
[updated 2013 Sep 13; cited 2016 May 8]. Available from:
http://www.ucl.
ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism
43. Remenyi D. Writing up your research. 2nd ed. Reading, UK:
Academic
Conferences and Publishing International Ltd; 2013. p. 127.
44. ‘Plagiarist’ to sue university. BBC News. 2004 May 27.
Available from: http://
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3753065.stm
45. Collis J, Hussey R. Business research: A practical guide for
undergraduate
and postgraduate students. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan; 2013.
Page 6 of 7

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-
audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0084
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27mit.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27mit.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ucd-inquiry-to-study-vetting-
practices-1.336913
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ucd-inquiry-to-study-vetting-
practices-1.336913
http://frontierweekly.com/archive/vol-number/vol/vol-43-2010-
11/vol-43-45/vicechanellors-43-45.pdf
http://frontierweekly.com/archive/vol-number/vol/vol-43-2010-
11/vol-43-45/vicechanellors-43-45.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/jul/18/highereducat
ion.uk
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/jul/18/highereducat
ion.uk
http://stemcellbioethics.wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Cloning
+Scandal+of+Hwang+Woo-Suk
http://stemcellbioethics.wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Cloning
+Scandal+of+Hwang+Woo-Suk
http://chronicle.com/article/In-Japan-Research-
Scandal/147417/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary
http://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2005/30/?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org
%2Fsais2005%2F30&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFC

overPages
overPages
overPages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/637610.544468
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/17/universities-battle-
a-rising-tide-of-cheating1
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/08/17/universities-battle-
a-rising-tide-of-cheating1
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/harvard-honor-ted-kennedy-
once-expelled-cheating
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/harvard-honor-ted-kennedy-
once-expelled-cheating
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.889597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.889597
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2148993
http://tlt.psu.edu/plagiarism/student-tutorial/why-plagiarism-is-
wrong/
http://tlt.psu.edu/plagiarism/student-tutorial/why-plagiarism-is-
wrong/
http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiaris
m
http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiaris
m
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/15/cheating-
rife-in-uk-education-system-dispatches-investigation-shows
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/IScurriculum/9
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/IScurriculum/9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610438
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1817-7417.104698
cases-rock-fort-hare
cases-rock-fort-hare
https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/essay-mills-
university-course-work-to-order/2007934.article?page=0%2C1
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/east-asia-has-
%E2%80%98toxic-academic-culture%E2%80%99
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/east-asia-has-
%E2%80%98toxic-academic-culture%E2%80%99
http://www.bestghostwriters.net/programming-ghostwriter/
http://www.bestghostwriters.net/programming-ghostwriter/

http://collections.plos.org/ghostwriting
ghostwritten-papers-best-practices/
ghostwritten-papers-best-practices/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077695813476953
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/29/highereducation.ed
ucation
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/29/highereducation.ed
ucation
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3753065.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3753065.stm
May/June 2016
46. Cook MC. The role of the academic supervisor for
undergraduate dissertations
in science and science-related subjects. Stud High Educ.
1980;5(2):173–
175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075078012331377206
47. Herman C. Obstacles to success – doctoral student attrition
in South Africa.
Perspect Educ. 2011;29(3):40–52.
48. Mouton J. Doctoral production in South Africa: Statistics,
challenges and

responses. Perspect Educ. 2011;29(3):13–29.
49. Smith RL, Maroney K, Nelson KW, Abel AL, Abel HS.
Doctoral programs:
Changing high rates of attrition. J Humanist Educ Dev.
2006;45(1):17. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2006.tb00002.x
50. Why I write for an essay mill. Times Higher Education.
2013 Aug 01. Available
from:
https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/why-
i-
write-for-an-essay-mill/2006074.article
51. Bosch X, Ross JS. Ghostwriting: Research misconduct,
plagiarism, or
fool’s gold? Am J Med. 2012;125(4):324–326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
amjmed.2011.07.015
52. Scott P. The meanings of mass higher education:
Buckingham: Open
University Press; 1995.
53. Houle CO. The design of education. 2nd ed. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass
Higher & Adult Education Series; 1996.
54. Dante E [pseudonym]. The shadow scholar: The man who
writes your
students’ papers tells his story. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. 2010
November 12. Available from: http://chronicle.com/article/The-
Shadow-
Scholar/125329/

55. Goodchild LF, Wechsler HS. The history of higher
education. ASHE Reader
Series. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing; 1997.
56. Newman JH, Turner FM. The idea of a university. New
Haven, CT: Yale
University Press; 1996.
57. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Effective practice in
preventing and
detecting academic fraud [document on the Internet]. c2013
[cited 2015 Aug
04]. Available from: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Providers-
and-partners/
NZQA-Effective-practice-guide.pdf
Page 7 of 7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075078012331377206
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2006.tb00002.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2006.tb00002.x
i-write-for-an-essay-mill/2006074.article
i-write-for-an-essay-mill/2006074.article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.015
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Providers-and-partners/NZQA-
Effective-practice-guide.pdf

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Providers-and-partners/NZQA-
Effective-practice-guide.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
The New Cheating Economy
Author: Wolverton, Brad
Abstract: Business is booming right under colleges' noses. It's
not just papers and assignments anymore. Now it's the whole
course. Fifteen credits were all he needed. That's what the
school district in California where Adam Sambrano works as a
career-guidance specialist required for a bump in pay. But when
he saw the syllabus for a graduate course he'd enrolled in last
year at Arizona State University, he knew he was in trouble.
Among the assignments was a 19-page paper, longer than
anything he'd ever written. The idea of that much research
worried Mr. Sambrano, who also spends time serving in the
Army National Guard. Before the class started, he went on
Craigslist and enlisted the service of a professional cheater. For
$1,000 -less than the monthly housing allowance he was
receiving through the GI Bill, he says -- Mr. Sambrano hired a
stranger to take his entire course.
Full text: Business is booming right under colleges' noses. It's
not just papers and assignments anymore. Now it's the whole
course. Fifteen credits were all he needed. That's what the
school district in California where Adam Sambrano works as a
career-guidance specialist required for a bump in pay. But when
he saw the syllabus for a graduate course he'd enrolled in last
year at Arizona State University, he knew he was in trouble.
Among the assignments was a 19-page paper, longer than
anything he'd ever written. The idea of that much research
worried Mr. Sambrano, who also spends time serving in the

Army National Guard. Before the class started, he went on
Craigslist and enlisted the service of a professional cheater. For
$1,000 -less than the monthly housing allowance he was
receiving through the GI Bill, he says -- Mr. Sambrano hired a
stranger to take his entire course. He transferred $500 upfront,
"From Adam for ASU," according to a receipt obtained by The
Chronicle. Then he just waited for the cheater to do his work.
On any given day, thousands of students go online seeking
academic relief. They are first-years and transfers overwhelmed
by the curriculum, international students with poor English
skills, lazy undergrads with easy access to a credit card. They
are nurses, teachers, and government workers too busy to pursue
the advanced degrees they've decided they need. The Chronicle
spoke with people who run cheating companies and those who
do the cheating. The demand has been around for decades. But
the industry is in rapid transition. Just as higher education is
changing, embracing a revolution in online learning, the
cheating business is transforming as well, finding new and more
insidious ways to undermine academic integrity. A decade ago,
cheating consisted largely of students' buying papers off the
internet. That's still where much of the money is. But in recent
years, a new underground economy has emerged, offering any
academic service a student could want. Now it's not just a paper
or one-off assignment. It's the quiz next week, the assignment
after that, the answers served up on the final. Increasingly, it's
the whole class. And if students are paying someone to take one
course, what's stopping them from buying their entire degree?
The whole-class market is maturing fast. More than a dozen
websites now specialize in taking entire online
courses, including BoostMyGrade.com, OnlineClassHelp.com,
and TakeYourClass.com. One of them, NoNeedtoStudy.com,
advertises that it has completed courses for more than 11,000
students at such colleges as Duke, Michigan State, even
Harvard. As cheating companies expand their reach, colleges
have little incentive to slow their growth. There's no money in
catching the cheaters. But there's a lot of money in upping

enrollment. Two professors at Western Carolina University
were so concerned about the encroachment of cheating that they
set up a fake online class to learn more about the industry's
tactics, and see what they could detect. About a dozen students
agreed to enroll in the introductory psychology course,
including John Baley, then a graduate student in clinical
psychology. They were provided with fake names, email
addresses, and ID numbers, plus a pot of money for cheating
services. Half were asked to cheat, and they did so in a variety
of ways, collaborating inappropriately with classmates, buying
papers, and paying others to take tests. Mr. Baley went looking
for a company to take the whole class for him. He typed a few
words into his browser -"cheat for me in my online class" -- and
turned up dozens of results. Many sites seemed untrustworthy:
Their content was misspelled or grammatically incorrect, or
their customer-service reps had trouble with basic English.
Some requested confidential banking information or asked him
to enter it into a website with no security protection. But one
company impressed him. Its representatives responded
promptly, explained how their colleagues would complete the
course, and guaranteed a B or better -- or his money back. He
agreed to pay the company $900, half upfront, and handed over
his course username and password. Over the next 10 weeks, the
company, which Mr. Baley declined to name, to protect any
further research, passed him from the customer-service staff to
the management team to the person who took his course. At
each stage, he says, he dealt with people who were efficient,
responsive, and reliable. In fact, the cheaters performed better
than he thought they would. They completed every assignment
without prompting, at one point providing a written script for a
video presentation with less than 36 hours' notice. The
instructors, Alvin Malesky, an associate professor of
psychology, and Robert Crow, an assistant professor of
educational research, used Turnitin and Google to check
students' work for plagiarism and monitored them to see if
groups were taking exams at the same time. The professors

caught several students plagiarizing material. But they didn't
spot the paid test takers, purchased papers, or coordinated
assignments. And they had no clue that a person in New York to
whom Mr. Baley had mailed his books was behind the A's they
were giving. Even when professors knew that students were
cheating, and were trying to catch them, they came up short.
Mr. Baley's only frustration was with the barrage of marketing
he got. His Facebook and Instagram feeds were saturated with
ads for cheating companies, he says. That didn't let up for
months. Two years after the company took his class, its
representatives are still trying to enlist him to refer other
students as clients. Like any underground industry, academic
cheating has its share of sloppy opportunists and savvy
operators. Most work in the shadows. Click on a website that
offers academic work for hire, and you'll probably find little
information about the people or company behind it. The owners
often use aliases and mislead prospective customers with fake
addresses and exaggerated claims. No Need to Study LLC lists
its corporate address as 19 East 52nd Street, in New York,, but
complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau say that
address does not exist. A representative for the company said in
an email that it is a virtual business offering services
exclusively online and does not have an office open to the
public. A dissertation-writing service that claims to be based in
Chicago seems to operate out of Pakistan. "In order to create a
best academic assignment that rank #1 among other
assignments," its website says, "then you will seek for a
dedicated and experienced writer's help." Even more-
established companies can be difficult to track down. The
headquarters of one, Student Network
Resources, appears to be in the middle of a New Jersey
cornfield. A half-mile away, in a generic strip mall, it maintains
a post-office box in a packing-and-shipping store. The owner of
the store says he forwards the mail to Florida. It goes to the
company's founder and president, Mark DeGaeta. Mr. DeGaeta
got the idea for Student Network Resources in the late 1990s,

when he was still in high school, he says in an email to The
Chronicle. Over the years, he has registered more than a dozen
domains, including PaperDue.com and HelpMyEssay.com,
which funnel work to his company, whose name is relatively
unknown. When students place a request through one of the
sites, they enter their name, email address, and as much
information about the assignment as possible, including due
date and level (undergraduate, master's, or doctoral). That
information goes into Student Network's system, where a price
is set based on the difficulty of the assignment. The job is
posted to a private board for writers, stripped of any personal
details about the student. From there, a willing writer picks up
the order and corresponds with the client through a private
channel in which students often disclose personal information
about themselves and their courses. Then the writer delivers the
completed assignment. Mr. DeGaeta is mum about the revenue
he has brought in, but the business appears to be lucrative. Two
longtime writers say they've earned as much as $10,000 a
month. At peak times, the company says on its website, most of
its 150 writers earn more than $1,800 a week. Writers typically
pocket half the price of an order; the company gets the rest. If
those numbers are accurate, annual revenue for Student Network
Resources would be in the millions. The company has only two
employees. The founder has made a good living, according to
public records. He owns an apartment in a tony neighborhood of
New York, near the United Nations building, and seems to
reside near Miami Beach. But his business has fallen off in
recent years, he says, as the industry has expanded overseas.
The company emphatically denies that it is a cheating service. It
says it tells customers that they may not use its material for
academic credit -- and requires them to acknowledge as much
before purchasing papers, during the research process, and
before receiving the work. "We vehemently protect our
copyright," Mr. DeGaeta said in a written statement. "If the
customer decides to use our material as a reference they must
cite Student Network Resources Inc." Several current and

former writers told The Chronicle that they had believed that.
Amelia Albanese, a former community-college tutor who
worked for the company in 2010, says she thought she was
writing sample papers for tutors and teachers. When she
realized she was doing students' work, she quit. "I worked at a
college," she says, "and if the students I worked with had
cheated, I would have been furious." The company's business
depends on covering its tracks. A memo it sent to writers last
year gives step-by-step instructions for wiping the metadata
from documents they produce. "Every document that you
submit must have 100% blank 'Summary' properties," the memo
says. "You can make the 'Author' field (and other fields) blank
by default for all new documents by going to 'Preferences' 'User
Information' and replacing the content of the 'First:' and 'Last:'
fields with a blank space." According to Mr. DeGaeta, the
memo was aimed at preventing writers from poaching clients.
But if there's no trace of a cheater on a document, a college has
no way of knowing -- or if an instructor suspects something, no
proof -- that the student didn't do the work. Cheating has
become second nature to many students. In studies, more than
two-thirds of college students say they've cheated on an
assignment. As many as half say they'd be willing to purchase
one. To them, higher education is just another transaction, less
about learning than about obtaining a credential. The market,
which includes hundreds of websites and apps, offers a slippery
slope of options. Students looking for class notes and sample
tests can find years' worth on Koofers.com, which archives
exams from dozens of colleges. And a growing number of
companies, including Course Hero and Chegg, offer online
tutoring that attempts to stay above the fray (one expert calls
such services a "gateway drug"). Many students turn to
websites like Yahoo Answers or Reddit to find solutions to
homework problems. And
every month, hundreds of students put assignments up for bid
on Freelancer.com and Upwork, where they might get a paper
written for the cost of a few lattes. It's not uncommon for

students to disclose personal details in their orders, which
anyone online can see. This spring a student from the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte included an attachment to his
Upwork order that identified his institution and the introductory
philosophy class he was looking for help in. A few days later, a
Ph.D. candidate in Britain went on the same site to solicit help
with his dissertation. A document he attached to his order
included his name and his adviser's. Some of the most explicit
exchanges happen on Craigslist, which has become a hub of
cheating activity. Over two days in April, The Chronicle
analyzed Craigslist posts in seven cities in which a cheater or
cheating service offered to complete whole courses for students.
The search turned up more than 200 ads. In many cases, the
same ads ran in multiple cities, suggesting a coordinated
marketing effort. Craigslist posters appealed to students by
acknowledging how little time they had for busywork. "Online
classes are a pain in the ass," said one Chicago-area ad. Others
outright asked students to hand over their online credentials.
"You can trust us with your login and password information,"
said a Phoenix post. "We will do every section of your online
class including discussion boards, tests, assignments, and
quizzes." The Chronicle exchanged messages with several
Craigslist posters to inquire about the cost of their service and
how it worked. One person who has posted regularly in the Los
Angeles area said he had been in business for 10 years and had
a staff of "over 20 experts." His prices, he said, depended on the
number of hours it would take to complete a class, not how well
a student wanted to do. "We always get A's and B's," he said in
a text message. "Calculation based classes are $750. All others
are $600. Anyone quoting different is not a pro and doesn't
know what they are doing. Cheap quotes = F grades. "Oh," he
added, "and you can split up the payments." Another poster
said his prices depended on the institution. "A course from Penn
State World Campus requires more effort than a course from
Post University," he said in an email. "Previously, I completed a
remedial English course for a client at Kaplan University. This

person requested a 'B' for $90/week for eight weeks. Another
client at a Cal State University required an 'A' in a four week
upper division Asian Studies course for $300/week." The most
common way students cheat is through a simple web search --
typing, for example, "essay," "essay help," or "write my essay."
As many as half of the visits to some sites used for cheating
come through search engines, The Chronicle found. The
companies that have made the biggest strides in the business
have mastered the search game. Searchengine optimization
efforts have helped Ultius, founded in 2011, grow fast. The
Delaware-based company, with a call center in Las Vegas, has
hired more than 40 employees, including engineers and
customer-service representatives, according to job ads. It has
contracted with more than 1,400 writers. That growth has
coincided with a surge in traffic. Over a recent three-month
stretch, the site drew about 520,000 visits, according to a
Chronicle analysis of data compiled by SimilarWeb. Thirty to
40 percent of Ultius's traffic comes from students' web searches,
according to estimates on Alexa, which measures internet usage.
Ultius is the No. 1 or No. 2 search result that pops up when
someone Googles "buy a term paper," "buy a research paper," or
about a dozen other phrases that indicate an intent to purchase a
completed assignment, according to a Chronicle analysis of
search data compiled by Spyfu, a search-engine optimization
tool. Boban Dedovic, 27, the company's chairman, helped start
it after three semesters as a student at the University of
Maryland at College Park, during which he worked as a tutor.
To him, Ultius is a technology company that connects customers
to writers, he says via email. He denies that Ultius is part of
the cheating industry, referring to it as a "doc prep service." In
a written statement, the company says it works hard to ensure
that its customers don't misuse its services, informing them of
its fair-use policy (that its work is meant for reference only and
must be properly cited) at least three
times and requiring them to accept it. When the company
suspects a problem, it conducts an investigation, drafts an

internal report, and, if it finds a violation, disables the
customer's account. However, the company says, it cannot
individually monitor every one of its orders. Ultius protects its
business by keeping those orders private. When a student posts
an assignment on Craigslist or other sites, looking for someone
to pick it up, Google indexes that text, making it visible in
searches. But the customer experience at Ultius occurs behind a
wall, in the same way a bank keeps its clients' information
private. Because Google can't create a record of those pages,
professors wouldn't be able to find them. The company's
dealings with one Ph.D. candidate illustrate the increasingly
complex work that students are outsourcing, while faculty
members remain in the dark. Last year, Ultius contracted with a
student who described herself as a "single active duty parent" to
help write a concept paper for her doctoral program, records
show. The job included revisions requested by the chair of her
dissertation committee. The Ph.D. student requested that Ultius
complete a literature review and produce a theoretical
framework for her dissertation. The order required the company
to find data on migration patterns and economic growth in
Jamaica, and to apply advanced economic theory. The company
did the work, but the customer was so displeased with it that she
filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. That
complaint details the case. Ultius considers customer service a
top priority, and despite 19 complaints in the past three years,
mainly minor beefs over papers and assignments, it maintains an
A+ rating from the BBB. The Ph.D. student threatened to go
public with her story, but more often it's the paid cheaters who
make threats. After Mr. Sambrano, the high-school guidance
specialist, transferred $500 to have the whole course at Arizona
State done for him, he stopped hearing from his Craigslist
cheater and filed a PayPal claim against him. The cheater
advised him to drop the claim or he'd hand over evidence of the
arrangement to the university. Mr. Sambrano, afraid he'd be
expelled, dropped the charge. He says he ended up doing the
class himself. In another case, if not for a cheater turning a

student in, a college may never have known that the student was
paying someone else to log in to the course and complete the
work. In May an undergraduate at Colorado State University-
Global Campus, dissatisfied with the quality of the work done
for him, filed a PayPal claim. Angered, the cheater gave the
student's name to the instructor, along with text messages,
screen shots of the student's portal, and payment records
detailing how the student had arranged to have the entire course
done for him, says Jon M. Bellum, the provost. CSU-Global, an
online institution with about 15,000 students, had its
information-technology department look at the IP addresses
used for the student's coursework and found more than one. Mr.
Bellum would not disclose the penalty the student faced, citing
privacy law, but says such abuses can result in expulsion. Often,
though, the university is not aware of the violation. Colleges
have tried technology to combat cheating. Several thousand
institutions around the world use the antiplagiarism software
Turnitin, which says it has a database of some 600 million
papers. But a recent study found that custom work is "virtually
undetectable." Coursera, an online education platform
employed by dozens of prominent colleges, uses webcams and
"keyboard dynamics," which attempt to verify students'
identities on the basis of their typing patterns. But that doesn't
do much good if the cheater is always typing. CSU-Global says
it spends about $60,000 a year administering random identity
checks on its students. The tests require them to provide
answers to personal questions like what banks service their
loans or what streets they've lived on. If they don't answer
accurately, they can't log in to their classes. About 2 percent of
identity checks result in students' getting locked out of the CSU
system. Other institutions have blocked access to sites that help
students cheat. Victor Valley College, in California, has
prevented anyone on a campus computer from accessing the
website of Student Network Resources. But students can turn to
their own laptops or other devices. The biggest key to fighting
the problem is faculty engagement, says Tricia Bertram Gallant,

a former president
of the International Center for Academic Integrity. She often
speaks with professors about the business, she says, and finds
them surprised that someone else could be doing students' work.
"When I tell them about contract cheating, they're shocked," she
says. "They basically say, 'What? That goes on?'[226 128 137 ]"
Others are in denial that it could happen in their classes. And
even those who know about it and want to stop it say they're too
busy, or feel that the fight is futile, with new cheating
companies popping up all the time. But some professors are
catching on. Last fall, Megan Elwood Madden, an associate
professor in the School of Geology and Geophysics at the
University of Oklahoma, spotted a suspicious passage in a
student's paper. She ran it through Turnitin, finding several
plagiarized sources but no match for the bulk of the text. So she
Googled the student's research topic and found the assignment
posted on Course Hero with the student's request for help. A
web search did not turn up the text the student had handed in,
because it was hidden in Course Hero's system. But once Ms.
Elwood Madden had logged in to the site, she could see
communication between the student and a contractor suggesting
that the student had had the work completed for him, the
professor said in an email. She discovered that the student had
used Course Hero to arrange work in at least four other classes
as well. The revelations led the university to expel the student.
Such stories are rare, academic-integrity officers say, because
there are so few would-be enforcers in pursuit. After The
Chronicle published an article about the Western Carolina
experiment, two federal law-enforcement officials contacted the
professors, eager to hear more about the business. William
Josephson, a former assistant attorney general in New York who
has investigated fraud, says companies that assume false
identities violate federal laws governing interstate commerce.
Laws in at least 17 states prohibit students from using cheating
services to complete their assignments. But prosecutors aren't
enforcing them. Faculty members on the front lines are no more

active. That's also true in other countries where the cheating
industry has developed. This spring, Marcus J. Ball, a higher-
education reformer in Britain, came across an advertisement for
academic cheating services on the wall of a London subway
station. The ad offended Mr. Ball, who began emailing college
administrators and professors, trying to persuade them to sign a
petition for the British government to debate the issue of
contract cheating. His goal was to create a "unified block" of
people willing to stand up to the cheating companies, with
hopes of taking the fight to Canada, the United States, and
elsewhere. In May, Mr. Ball contacted more than 250 college
officials, including academic-integrity leaders in several
countries. Only five responded. "Academics are constantly
complaining about the essay-mill problem," he said in the email.
But when presented with a "practical way forward to potentially
solve the problem, they don't engage." Last year, Ms. Bertram
Gallant, who is director of the academic-integrity office at the
University of California at San Diego, organized a dozen
international experts to study the growth of contract cheating
and how to stop it. The group laid out a series of big goals.
Chief among them: Mobilize faculty members and students to
demand laws making it more difficult for cheating companies to
operate. It is creating a tool kit to help professors detect and
prevent cheating. And it is organizing an international
awareness day to bring more attention to the problem. But the
group can only muster so much fight. "There's just not enough
of us who care," says Ms. Bertram Gallant. "It's a very small
cadre internationally who really dedicate our lives to working
on this issue, and that's just not enough people." College
leaders haven't helped, she says. Many have failed to make the
issue a priority. Few colleges have academic-integrity offices,
she says, or devote dollars to the problem.
"There is a lot of money to support these companies, but not a
lot of money to support our research," she says. "All the money
is going to the illegal part of the industry, and none of it is
going to combat the industry." Colleges also might need to

rethink their approach, says Ms. Bertram Gallant. As online
education continues to grow, and cheating companies have more
opportunities to infiltrate classes, institutions would do well to
enlist people with the skills to ferret out violations, she says.
While educators may be equipped to catch plagiarism, they
don't have the tools to track a paid cheater who is assuming
someone else's identity. Instead, colleges continue to rely on
proud traditions to fight the scourge of cheating. This fall, as
students return to campus, some colleges will require them to
sign an honor code. Others will spell out for them the potential
consequences of academic dishonesty. In October, academic-
integrity officials at the University of Oklahoma plan to hold a
session to warn new students about paper mills. The tool they're
using to combat cheating? Tea bags. To remind the students of
the importance of ethics, the university is encouraging them
have a cup of "integri-tea."

36South African Journal of Science httpwww.sajs.co.zaVol.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from lorainedeserre

More from lorainedeserre (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

36South African Journal of Science httpwww.sajs.co.zaVol.docx