Extent of contract cheating
The first published material detailing the extent of contract cheating is a study by Robert Clarke and Thomas Lancaster. The study presented three main findings:
- Over 12 percent of postings on a popular website for outsourcing computer contract work are actually bid requests from students looking to attempt contract cheating.
- Contract cheaters posted an average of 4-7 requests, suggesting that habitual use is made of such services by these students.
- A smaller number of users have posted over 50 bid requests, including examples from multiple institutions. This suggests that these are agencies subcontracting work, not students who are directly making use of the services.
Whereas the quality of solutions to assignments sold by essay mill has been questioned, a study by Jenkins and Helmore showed that work obtained through the use of an auction site was of sufficient quality to gain good marks and remain undetected by the module tutor.
A more recent study examined over 900 examples of contract cheating by students studying computing subjects. The published results categorise the assignment types (e.g. Programming, Database, Web Design) and are analysed by country. One new concern identified by this study was the number of major projects (both final year undergraduate and postgraduate) being posted onto auction sites.
In July 2007 a paper proposed a systematic six-stage process that tutors can use to detect students who are contract cheating.
From a study of 4,000 suspected cases of "contract cheating" some interesting patterns of behaviour have been observed. A summary was presented at the HEA Workshop on Contract Cheating (March 2008).
At the Aske conference held in June 2009 a paper detailing a "multi-faceted" approach to dealing with the problem of "contract cheating" was presented.
A paper presented at the STEM conference (April 2012) was a study of over 600 assignments in subject areas ranging from "Anthropology to Theology".
The Commercial Aspects of Contract Cheating are examined in a paper given at ITiCSE '13. This paper analyses the monetary value of contract cheating to the different parties who play a role in the contract cheating process. The main analysis is based on a corpus consisting of 14,438 identified attempts to cheat. The corpus was collected between March 2005 and July 2012.  
Although non-originality engines (like Turnitin) are unlikely to detect "outsourced" assignments submitted by students, there has been some success in using it to identify the source of assignments detected on auction sites. 
Prevention of Contract Cheating
The assignments prepared by essay-writing companies and other paid third-parties are supposedly 'original', meaning that they are likely to evade detection by software packages such as Turnitin. Assessment design strategies may limit the possibiity that students can use contract cheating services, although a 2014 publication in Educational Studies showed that reducing the time that students have to prepare their assessments is unlikely to deter contract cheating, and that there appeared to be significant spare capacity in the contract cheating market 
Penalties for Contract Cheating
In general, academic institutions consider contract cheating to be one of the most serious forms of academic misconduct and it is penalised accordingly. In 2010 the 'AMBeR Project' developed a UK 'Plagiarism Tariff' in an attempt to standardise penalties for all forms of academic misconduct. The final report noted that purchase of an assignment should be penalised with the most serious penalties available, such as expulsion from the institution, and that many institutions considered it to be a separate form of misconduct altogether due to the seemingly obvious intent associated with it. However, a 2015 research study, also in the UK, asked university students what they thought penalties for academic misconduct should be. The responses demonstrated that students consistently recommended lenient penalties for plagiarism, and that this effect was most pronounced for contract cheating 
Legality of Contract Cheating Services
The legality of contract cheating services was reviewed by Newton and Lang in a 2016 book chapter of the Springer Handbook for Academic Integrity. The legal status of these services varies internationally. In New Zealand it is illegal to "advertise or provide third party assistance to cheat", with similar, older laws on the statutes of 17 states in the USA. More broadly, the activities of such services, and their clients, could be reasonably interpreted to fit with definitions of fraud as they involve ‘false representation’ and ‘failure to disclose information’. Despite the apparent potential of a legal challenge to contract cheating companies, prosecutions are rare. Many companies provide a disclaimer on their site that any custom written products are to be used only as ‘study guides’ or ‘revision aids’, thereby placing responsibility onto the client. However, media ‘stings’ have shown that companies are complicit in the inappropriate use of these products 
- Accreditation mill • Diploma mill • Ordination mill • Contract cheating / Essay mill
- Author mill • Vanity publishing
- Puppy mill
- Shepherd, Jessica (2008-05-06). "The rise of 'contract cheating' at universities". The Guardian (London).
- "Student cheats contract out work". BBC/bbc.com. 2006-06-12. Retrieved 2006-06-14.
- Lightfoot, Liz (2006-06-13). "Cheating students put assignments out to tender on the internet". London: Telegraph/telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-06-14.
- "The cybercheats making a small fortune". London: Daily Mail/dailymail.co.uk. 2006-06-17. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2006-06-19). "Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites". CiteSeerX: 10
.1 .1 .120 .5440.
- Thomas Lancaster bio
- "Robert Clarke bio". Linkedin.com. Retrieved 2013-07-21.
- "T. Jenkins and S. Helmore "Coursework for cash: the threat from on-line plagiarism", in Proceedings of 7th Annual Conference for Information and Computer Science, Dublin. Higher Education Academy pp121-126 (August 2006)" (PDF).
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2007-08-30). "Assessing Contract Cheating Through Auction Sites – A Computing Perspective" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-09-13.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2007-07-26). "The Establishing a Systematic Six-Stage Process for Detecting Contract Cheating". Retrieved 2011-01-09.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2008-03-07). "The Private Life of an Assignment" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-01-09.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2009-06-04). "Contract Cheating in UK Higher Education: promoting a proactive approach" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-01-09.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2012-04-18). "Dealing with contract cheating: a question of attribution" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-05-03.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2013-07-01). "Commercial aspects of contract cheating". Retrieved 2013-08-21.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2013-07-01). "Commercial aspects of contract cheating (Slides)". Retrieved 2013-08-21.
- Clarke, Robert; Lancaster, Thomas (2014-04-13). "Using Turnitin as a tool for attribution in cases of contract cheating". Retrieved 2014-10-28.
- Wallace, M.J. and Newton P.M. 2014. Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating. Educational Studies. 40(2) 233-236.
- "Plagiarism tariff: let the punishment fit the demerit points". Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved 22 May 2016.
- "Academic integrity: a quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education". Retrieved 22 May 2016.
- "Hundreds fail to spot plagiarism". Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved 22 May 2016.
- "Academic integrity: a quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education". Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41: 482–497. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199. Retrieved 22 May 2016.