Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Academic Honesty

"[S]tudents have been blackmailed by contract cheating sites threatening to reveal their identity to the university unless these students pay additional money to companies to maintain their silence" (1159).

'[P]urchasing work from contract cheating sites can be a risky investment of time and money, as you may not get what you paid for; you may get nothing at all" (1160).

"We found all websites outline their services in glowing terms, but some do not deliver the promises made, which is not apparent until after payment. Some sites failed to meet set deadlines, failed to produce all parts of the assignment or produced assignments that did not adhere to our assignment specifications" (1160).

"Sites guarantee quality work, quality writers and value for money. However this study found that 30% of orders contained poor quality work, missing sections, failed to meet user specifications or were late and/or required revision. In addition, 52% of purchased work failed to reach the requisite pass mark. Student-users run the risk of purchasing work, only to fail the assessment anyway" (1160).

"[S]ome sites repeatedly contact users to pressure them to purchase further assignments or upgrade their orders. Students need to be warned that this form of aggressive marketing may occur if they use contract cheating sites" (1160).

Sutherland-Smith, Wendy, and Kevin Dullaghan. “You Don’t Always Get What You Pay for: User Experiences of Engaging with Contract Cheating Sites.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 8, Dec. 2019, pp. 1148-1162.