What is contract cheating – and how can institutions respond?

A hidden form of misconduct

Most forms of plagiarism leave a trace: a copied passage, a matching source, a recognisable phrase. Contract cheating is different. The work is often written from scratch for the student, so there may be nothing to match – and nothing that obviously looks wrong. That is what makes it one of the most serious and hardest-to-detect threats to academic integrity.

The term was introduced by researchers Robert Clarke and Thomas Lancaster in 2006, originally to describe students outsourcing work through online marketplaces. Today it covers commercial essay mills as well as help from friends, family or other students – paid or unpaid.

How does it work?

Contract cheating takes many forms, but it usually involves one or more of the following:

• Essay mills – commercial services that write essays, reports, dissertations, code or other work to order, often through freelance writers and often advertised directly to students.
• Shared or recycled work – assignments passed between students, or resold by essay mills to more than one buyer.
• Help from friends and family – unpaid, but still work the student did not do themselves.
• Exam impersonation – someone else sitting an exam, or answering questions remotely, on the student’s behalf.
• AI as a ghostwriter – generative AI can now produce a complete assignment in seconds, blurring the line between contract cheating and other forms of misconduct.

Why does it matter?

The main reason is trust in qualifications. A degree certifies that the holder has the knowledge and skills it describes. If work is bought rather than done, that promise is broken – for employers, for society and for the honest students whose degrees lose value.

The problem is not marginal. A 2018 review of 65 studies found that the share of students admitting to paying someone to do their work had risen to almost one in six in recent studies – and the author believed the true figure was higher. Several countries have responded with legislation. Since 2022, providing or advertising essay mill services has been illegal in England, and similar laws exist in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

What institutions cannot do alone

No single tool can detect contract cheating reliably. Because the work is original, a similarity check may find nothing – and a very low similarity score can itself be one of the warning signs. Other indicators include a sudden change in writing style, work that does not reflect the course, unusual references or odd document metadata. None of these is proof on its own.

That is why most guidance focuses on assessment design and on building a body of evidence, not on detection alone. Assessments that include drafts, personal reflection or an oral element are harder to outsource, and a conversation with the student about their own work is often the clearest test of authorship.

How does WISEflow approach it?

WISEflow cannot see who wrote a text. But it can help institutions design assessments that are harder to outsource, and gather the evidence needed when something looks wrong:

• Recycled work is found. Originality compares submissions with earlier submissions and other sources, and its semantic detection also finds work that has been reworded or “AI-washed” before being resold or reused.
• Secure formats where they matter. Invigilated on-site exams with the lockdown browser remove the opportunity to outsource the work itself.
• Oral elements are easy to add. Written and oral assessments can be combined, so students can be asked to explain and defend what they have submitted.
• Evidence in one place. Submissions, similarity reports and a student’s earlier work are kept in the same platform, making it easier to compare and document a case.
• The marker decides. WISEflow supports academic judgement; it never replaces it.

What should institutions consider?

• Assessment design: use drafts, reflection, authentic tasks and oral elements where the risk is highest.
• Training: help markers recognise the warning signs, and know what to do next.
• Students: explain clearly what contract cheating is, why it matters and where to find legitimate support.
• Process: agree how suspected cases are investigated, including the use of authorship interviews.

Contract cheating cannot be solved by technology alone. Addressed well, through considered assessment design, clear policies and the right tools, it becomes far harder to buy a qualification – and far easier to trust one.