Cheaters on Twitter
An Analysis of Engagement Approaches of Contract Cheating Services
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4097536 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alexander Amigud (0000-0002-2347-3172, Center for the Study of Social Processes, Toronto, Canada, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 692-705 |
| Publication date | 2020-03-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Studies in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0307-5079 • E-ISSN: 1470-174X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/03075079.2018.1564258 |
| OpenAlex | W2907672252 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 23 |
| References cited | 27 |
This paper presents the results of an exploratory study that examined engagement approaches of contract cheating services on the Twitter platform. The literature portrays the grey academic market as an invisible hand that magically delivers academic content at the click of a button, which leaves a wide gap in our understanding of their outreach efforts. To this end, data from 71 contractors and 12,701 users were analysed to describe what academics and administrators are up against. The results suggest that contractors employ automation tools to generate leads, specific to their subject area, which denotes market segmentation and competition. This study is part of a larger project aimed at minimizing academic misconduct; it discusses implications for educational practice and offers recommendations for prevention of contract cheating
Academic integrity · Business · Cheating · Exploratory research · Higher education · Misconduct · Outreach · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · World Wide Web · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Computer Science · Ethics in Business and Education · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology · Marketing
Exploring contract cheating in further education
How internet essay mill websites portray the student experience of higher education
Contract cheating
Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era
Perceptions of Students and Teachers Regarding Remote and Face-to-Face Assessments in the Evolving Higher Education Landscape
Meaningful crime prevention or just an ‘Act’
Student perceptions of peer cheating behaviour during Covid-19 induced online teaching and assessment
Online versus face‐to‐face cheating
Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning
Overcoming stigma
Methodological and Ethical Approaches to Studying Contract Cheating
International Predictors of Contract Cheating in Higher Education
The Causes and Prevention of Commercial Contract Cheating in the Era of Digital Education
Moral Disengagement, Machiavellianism and Academic Dishonesty
Crime or Failure of Integrity
I will pay someone to do my assignment
Assignment outsourcing
Cheating as a prosocial act? Helping others with academic cheating is related to social goals and cooperative norms
Contract cheating in higher education
Students cheat more often from those known to them
The law and the outlaw
Approaches to learning and contract cheating
Academic misconduct appeal services in China
Cheating in Academic Institutions
The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades
The Use of Twitter to Track Levels of Disease Activity and Public Concern in the U.S. during the Influenza A H1N1 Pandemic
Tweet this
‘Just turn to us’
How Prevalent is Contract Cheating and to What Extent are Students Repeat Offenders
Contract cheating
Combating Academic Fraud
Contract cheating
Contract cheating
| Unique citing works | 23 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,83 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 20 |