Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating

This article discusses the issue of contract cheating and the effectiveness of short turnaround times in preventing it. The analysis shows that requested turnaround times for contract cheating are already short, on average 5 days, and there appears to be a large capacity for shorter turnaround times to be achieved.

This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]
On: 09 October 2014, At: 07:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20
Turnaround time and market capaci
in contract cheating
Melisa J. Wallace
a & Philip M. Newton
b
a Institute of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, School of
Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
b College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
Published online: 25 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Melisa J. Wallace & Philip M. Newton (2014) Turnaround time
and market capacity in contract cheating, Educational Studies, 40:2, 233-236, DOI:
10.1080/03055698.2014.889597
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.889597
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating
Melisa J. Wallacea and Philip M. Newtonb*
aInstitute of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University,
Cardiff, UK;bCollege of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
(Received 30 December 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)
Contract cheating is the process whereby students auction off the opportunity for
othersto complete assignmentsfor them.It is an apparently widespread yet
under-researched problem. One suggested strategy to prevent contract cheating is
to shorten the turnaround time between the release of assignment details and the
submission date,thus making it difficult for students to make arrangements with
contractors.Here,we outline some characteristicsof the currentmarketfor
contractcheating and demonstrate thatshortturnaround times are unlikely to
prevent contract cheating because requested turnaround times for university-level
assignments completed via contractcheating are already short(average 5 days).
In addition, for every contractor awarded a job, there are an average of 10 others
offering to complete it within the specified time suggesting that there is abundant
excess capacity in the market.
Keywords: plagiarism; academic integrity; cheating; essay mill; custom essay
Introduction
Many aspectsof modern lifehaveundergonea dramaticchangein the last
generation dueto the emergenceof the internetand theready availability of
information.One unwanted side effect of the information revolution in education is
the emergence of so-called “contractcheating”,wherein students pay to have their
assignments completed by an independentcontractor(Walker and Townley2012).
Contractcheating wasinitially described in the areasof computerscience and
informationtechnology(Clarkeand Lancaster2007)but now appearsto be
widespreadacrossdisciplinesand has attractedconsiderablemediaattention.
Despite the publicity surrounding contractcheating,there are very few scientific
studies of the issue and thus it is difficult to devise any evidence-based approach
addressing it.
The work generated by contractcheating is,in theory,originaland thus evades
originality detection software.It is therefore difficultto accurately estimate the
extentof contractcheating.Unpublished survey data from the software company
Turnitin show that7% of students in higher education self-reporthaving purchased
an assignment(Turnitin2013).A related phenomenon is the use ofmaterialfrom
so-called “paper mills” – companies with large repositories of pre-written essays.
old (relativeto the emergenceof contractcheating)study found that3% of
university undergraduates self-reporthaving obtained an assignmentfrom a “paper
*Corresponding author. Email: [e-mail]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Educational Studies, 2014
Vol. 40, No. 2, 233–236, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.889597
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:41 09 October 2014

mill” (McCabe 2005).Although limited,these data suggest that contract cheating is
a significant problem in higher education.
Given the difficulty ofdetecting custom-written assignments,it would appear
logical that prevention is a more sensible approach to tackling the problem. One s
gested preventative measure is to reduce the turnaround time for assignments –
time between the release of assignmentcriteria and the due date for the completed
assignment.This would,in theory,give students less time to contactand contracta
third party to prepare their work (Mahmood2009; O’Malley and Roberts 2012).
To establish whatan idealturnaround time mightbe to deter contractcheating,
we set out to calculatethe currentaverageturnaroundtime for contracted
assignments.We analysed 132 publically available assignmentrequests posted on
two sites which have been misused for contractcheating purposes (Freelancer.com
and Transtutors.com).
Methods
We located contracted assignments by browsing the aforementioned websites, w
contain sections for “academic writing”.We also searched for the terms “University
Essay”,“University-LevelEssay”,“.ac.uk” and “.edu”.Some assignmentswere
found by searching the work history of freelancers with a track record of academi
writing. No more than five assignments were included from any single writer.
To be included in our analysis, the contracted assignment had to:
be clearly identified asa University-levelacademic assignment,but not a
Masters or PhD dissertation (i.e. an essay of 500–5000 words);
have been posted by astudentseeking to cheat(ratherthan any other
interpretation – see below for detail);
require writing in its entirety (not editing or proofing);
only comprise a single, written assignment.
To determine whether an assignmentwas likely to be used to cheat,we looked for
indicatorssuch as:instructionsto freelancersstating thattherewas to be no
plagiarism in theassignment,instructionsabouthow to avoid plagiarism and
statements that the employer did not have time to do the work.
For everyassignmentanalysedfrom the Freelancersite, we recordedthe
following information (where possible): date, stated discipline, number of words, t
requestedturnaroundtime (in days),whetheror not the requesthad been
successfully completed within the turnaround time,the number of bidders offering
to complete the job within the turnaround time,the actual(delivered)turnaround
time and a link to the originalposting.Once we had analysed postings made on
Freelancer,we determined whether the main findings were replicated using posting
made on a differentsite (www.transtutors.com) which has a more limited range of
information available (see results).
Where no turnaround time was specified by the employer,this was recorded as
“Not Stated”.Where a deadline was stated butthe turnaround time could notbe
determined from the posting itself (e.g. “I need this by Feb 17th” rather than “I n
this in 3 days”),then the turnaround time was calculated from the posting date of
the assignment.Where a range was stated (e.g.3–4 days,2500–3000 words),the
234 M.J. Wallace and P.M. Newton
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:41 09 October 2014

upper limit of the range was used for analysis.Where assignment length was stated
in pages, it was converted to a word count by multiplying the page number by 35
We deliberately covered awide timeframe(2009–2013)to ensurethatour
analysis was not skewed by any short-term characteristics specific to summer 20
Results
The assignments covered a broad range of disciplines and countries of origin.They
were classified into the following categories based upon the information available
Each figure in brackets represents the numberof posted requests falling into that
category;“Anything” (1),Aquaculture (1),Art (2), Biology (1),Business(Inc.
MBA) (17), Child Development(1), “China”(1), Communication Studies(1),
ComputerScience (distinctfrom Information Technology)(4), Criminology (2),
Economics (including Econometrics) (5), Education (8), English + English Literatur
(9), Engineering (2),Ethics (3),Film Studies (3),Finance (2),Health and Social
Care (2),History (3),Human Resources (3),“India” (1),Interpreting (1),Interna-
tionalRelations (1),Information Technology (4),Italian (1),Journalism (1),Law
(7),Linguistics (2),MagicalRealism (1),Management(6),Marketing (Inc.Sales)
(8), Music History (2),Nursing (1),“PersonalDevelopment” (1),Philosophy (1),
Politics(2), ProjectManagement(4), Psychology (2),“Quality”(1), Religious
Studies(2), ResearchMethods(1), Science(1), Sociology (3),Statistics(1),
Sustainability (1), “Writing” (1) and Unclassified/Unclassifiable (4).
We initially analysed99 postingsfrom the “Freelancer”site. The mean
turnaround time requested from this source was 4.45 days (SEM 0.57),with a mean
stated turnaround time ofcompleted jobs being 4.47 days (SEM 0.56).For every
accepted bid, there was a mean of 10 other freelancers offering to complete the w
within the stated time.Simple linearregression analysisshowed no relationship
between the length of the requested assignmentand the requested turnaround time
(R2 = 0.076) or between the length of the requested assignmentand the numbers of
freelancers offering to complete the work within the turnaround time (R2 = 0.029).
To determine whethershortturnaround timeswere a feature ofanothersite
which can be misused for contract cheating, we analysed 33 postings on the web
“Transtutors”.Mean requested turnaround time was slightly butsignificantly longer
than in the postings analysed from “Freelancer” (mean = 7.7 days,P = 0.0251 by
Mann Whitney test,U = 446).Metrics fornumberof bidders and job completion
rates are not available on this site.
Of the 132 total assignments we analysed, 68% stated a desired turnaround tim
The overallmean requested turnaround time was5.14 days(SEM = 0.56,range
0–24 days).Twenty-four percentof these requests were for a turnaround time of 1
day or less.Eighty percentof requests appeared to have been completed within the
stated time,although itis notpossible to verify the accuracy of stated completion
times, the number of stated bidders or the quality of the work returned.
Discussion
Short turnaround times have been suggested as one means by which contract ch
ing can be prevented. Our analysis demonstrates that requested turnaround time
contractcheating are already short,on average 5 days,and there appears to be a
large capacity forshorterturnaround times to be achieved.In addition,assigning
Educational Studies235
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:41 09 October 2014

coursework with turnaround times of less than 5 days would severely compromise
valid assessmentof many of the outcomes tested in long written assignments,such
as developinga researchquestion,searchingfor literature,analysingit and
developing an argument.Therefore,we conclude thatshortturnaround times are
unlikely to effectively deter contract cheating,but would have a negative impact on
the validity of assessments and the learning outcomes achieved.
The suggestion ofshortturnaround times to preventcontractcheating seems
logical,but is perhaps based upon the premise that those engaging in the behavio
are sufficiently organised to arrange for contractors to complete the work with a l
turnaroundtime.It seemsreasonableto assumethat time pressures,perhaps
exacerbated by otherfactorssuch as personalproblemsor a history ofpoor
academic performance,contribute to a decision by students to use contract cheating
services,as they do for “traditional” plagiarism (Walker and Townley2012); a tight
deadline may lead to contract cheating, rather than prevent it.
There is unlikely to be a single means by which contract cheating can be tackle
Otherpreventative suggestionshave included a greateremphasison examsand
in-class assignments,together with a personalising of coursework and the aligning
of content between exams and coursework (Mahmood2009; O’Malley and Roberts
2012). Perhaps the single greatest need is for more high-profile research in this a
to educate educators about the existence and detail of the problem.
Conclusion
Shortturnaround times forUniversity assignments are highly unlikely to prevent
contract cheating.
Notes on contributors
MelisaJ. Wallaceis a lecturerin Pharmacology atCardiff University,whoseresearch
interests include education and academic integrity.
Philip M. Newton isan associate professorat Swansea MedicalSchool,whose research
interests include education and academic integrity.
References
Clarke, R., and T. Lancaster. 2007. “Establishing a Systematic Six-stage Process for Detec
Contract Cheating.” In 2nd International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Appl
cations, ICPCA 2007, Birmingham, UK, 342–347. doi:10.1109/ICPCA.2007.4365466.
Mahmood,Z. 2009. “ContractCheating:A New Phenomenonin Cyber-plagiarism.”
Communications of the IBIMA 10 (12): 93–97.
McCabe,Donald L. 2005.“Cheating among College and University Students:A North
American Perspective.” InternationalJournalfor EducationalIntegrity 1 (1).Accessed
November 29.http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/14
O’Malley,Michael,and Tim Sean Roberts.2012.“Plagiarism on the Rise? Combating
ContractCheating in Science Courses.” InternationalJournalof Innovation in Science
and MathematicsEducation (formerly CAL-Laborate International)20 (4). Accessed
November 15.http://ojs-prod.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/5803
Turnitin. 2013. Paying for Plagiarism. http://pages.turnitin.com/WC_082913_archive.html.
Walker,Mary, and CynthiaTownley.2012.“ContractCheating:A New Challengefor
Academic Honesty?” Journalof Academic Ethics 10 (1):27–44.doi:10.1007/s10805-0
12-9150-y.
236 M.J. Wallace and P.M. Newton
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:41 09 October 2014