Paid Academic Writing Services: A Perceptional Study of Business Students

Samiullah Sarwar, Zaeemah Muhammad Idris, Sheikh Muhammad Ali


It seems challenging to detect the beneficiary students of the Academic Paid Writing Services, which refers to a practice in which authors or students appoint professional writers to produce scholarly work (including research papers,  university assignments, research reports, and so on)  with a predefined style. This study aimed to explore the factors leading the students in higher education to choose the paid Academic Writing Services (PAWS), which affects their performance and personal development due to contract cheating and make them realize that learning is better than grades as through self-explorations only a person can get something better. By employing quantitative approach to obtain information associated with PAWS, data was gathered from 117 business students enrolled in six Higher Education Institutes in Karachi, Pakistan, using adopted questionnaire having close-ended questions with 5-point Likert scale, measuring students’ attitude towards class assignments, their awareness about plagiarism, and their attitude about academic paid writing services. The results revealed that male students were more inclined towards paid writing services than their counterpart female students were and the increase in Students’ Attitude towards Assignments brought the increase academic paid writing services. Therefore, academic professionals servicing in universities are recommended to take due care of the two factors to prevent the increased paid academic wiring services.

Full Text:

PDF Web Page


Clare, J., Walker, S., & Hobson, J. (2017). Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), Retrieved from doi:10.1007/s40979-017-0015-4 [Google Scholar]

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. : Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]

Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 115-124. Retrieved from doi:10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x [Google Scholar]

Curtis, G. J., & Popal, R. (2011). An examination of factors related to plagiarism and a five-year follow-up of plagiarism at an Australian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(1), [Google Scholar]

Das, N., & Das, S. (2014). Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting?. Biochemia medica. Biochemia medica, 24(1), 19-24. Retrieved from,%20Das%20S-Medical%20writers%20and%20ghostwriters.pdf doi:10.11613/BM.2014.004 [Google Scholar]

Draper, M. J., Ibezim, V., & Newton, P. M. (2017). Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006. Fraud Act (UK). International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(1), [Google Scholar]

Fisher, E., McLeod, A. J., Savage, A., & Simkin, M. G. (2016). Ghostwriters in the cloud. Journal of Accounting Education, 34, 59-71. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2015.11.001 [Google Scholar]

Fusch, P. I., Ness, L. R., Booker, J. M., & Fusch, G. E. (2017). The Ethical Implications of Plagiarism and Ghostwriting in an Open Society. Journal of Social Change, 9(1), [Google Scholar]

Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2015). Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(1), 91-101. Retrieved from doi:10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8 [Google Scholar]

Lines, L. (2016). Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services available to tertiary students in Australia. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 889-914. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1198759 [Google Scholar]

Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 197-203. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/00405840802153809 [Google Scholar]

Rigby, D., Burton, M., Balcombe, K., Bateman, I., & Mulatu, A. (2015). Contract cheating & the market in essays. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 111, 23-37. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.019 [Google Scholar]

Roberts, J. (2009). An author's guide to publication ethics: a review of emerging standards in biomedical journals. Headache: The. Journal of Head and Face Pain, 49(4), 578-589. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01379.x [Google Scholar]

Sarwar, S. (2016). Influence of Parenting Style on Children’s Behaviour. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(2), 222-249. Retrieved from doi:10.22555/joeed.v3i2.1036 [Google Scholar]

Singh, S., & Remenyi, D. (2016). Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct. South African Journal of Science, 112(5), 1-7. [Google Scholar]

Starovoytova, D. (2017). Plagiarism under a Magnifying-Glass. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(15), 109-129. [Google Scholar]

Stretton, S. (2014). Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature. BMJ open, 4(7), [Google Scholar]

Wallace, M. J., & Newton, P. M. (2014). Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating. Educational Studies, 40(2), 233-236. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.889597 [Google Scholar]

Zheng, S., & Cheng, J. (2015). Academic ghostwriting and international students. Young Scholars in Writing, 12, 124-133. [Google Scholar]



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Comments on this article

View all comments

Copyright (c) 2018 International Journal of Experiential Learning & Case Studies

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.