Singapore: Academic Misconduct Index Country Profile

TL;DR

Singapore: P=15.34, R=47.5, Q4 (Probably not looking). Borderline Q1 — lowest Asian Prevalence, highest Asian R-Score. MOE framework, strong NUS/NTU/SMU institutional infrastructure. No specific contract cheating legislation is the main gap from Q1.

AMI scores at a glance

• Prevalence Score (P): 15.34 — 34th of 39 countries
• Response Quality (R): 47.5 — highest in Asia
• Quadrant: Q4 — Probably not looking (borderline Q1)
• Data quality: A (5/6 dimensions from live data)
• Region: Asia

Dimension breakdown

What drives Singapore's score

Consistently low dimension scores

Singapore's dimension scores are consistently moderate-low across the board:

• D1=50, D2=44 — lower than most Asian peers
• D3=8 — among the lowest in the dataset
• D5=50 — well below regional peers (India, Malaysia, Indonesia at 72)
• D6=20 — low

The pattern reflects mature institutional integrity culture combined with relatively small higher education sector (six autonomous universities plus polytechnics). High institutional standards apply uniformly across the major institutions.

Low data fabrication (D6 = 20)

Singapore's Retraction Watch signal is low. NUS, NTU, and the other autonomous universities produce substantial research output, particularly in engineering, biomedical, and computing fields, with misconduct-linked retraction rates among the lowest in Asia.

What Singapore does well (R = 47.5)

The R-Score of 47.5 is the highest in Asia. The breakdown:

• Legislation: 30 — research integrity framework; no specific essay mill ban
• Detection tools: 65 — broad Turnitin deployment
• Disclosure: 40 — institutional reporting
• Penalties: 55 — clear, applied frameworks

Singapore institutions

NUS, NTU, SMU, SUTD, SIT, and SUSS operate strong institutional academic integrity offices. The Singapore university system is small (six autonomous universities) but coherently regulated through MOE oversight. Detection tool deployment is universal across the autonomous universities; institutional integrity offices are well-resourced.

MOE

The Ministry of Education oversees Singapore higher education. MOE's quality assurance framework includes integrity-relevant components. The Committee for Private Education (CPE) regulates the broader private higher education sector with somewhat lower integrity standards than the autonomous universities.

Why Singapore is borderline Q1

Singapore's R-Score of 47.5 is below the Q1 threshold but the gap is small. The gap from Q1 Anglophone leaders reflects:

• No specific contract cheating ban (Australia, UK, Ireland all have one)
• Disclosure infrastructure is institutional rather than statutory
• The autonomous universities operate strong frameworks but national-level mandates are limited

Adopting essay mill legislation on the Irish/UK model would lift the Legislation sub-score and likely shift Singapore into Q1.

Implications

For Singapore policymakers, the gap from Q1 is achievable with a modest legislative change. The institutional infrastructure already supports Q1-level integrity practice.

For employers and admissions offices, Singapore credentials carry strong integrity infrastructure signals. The autonomous universities (NUS, NTU, SMU, SUTD) have integrity profiles comparable to Q1 European peers.

Sources

• MOE framework documentation
• NUS, NTU institutional integrity policies
• Retraction Watch Database, Crossref/GitLab (2026)
• Google Trends (2022–2026), Singapore country-level
• Academic Misconduct Index v1.5 methodology

View full methodology | Download dataset

Related data

• View Singapore on the AMI scatter plot
• Read the full methodology
• See the full country rankings