Strongest Academic Integrity Response: Top 10 Countries 2026

TL;DR

Top 10 R-Scores in AMI v1.5: Australia (88.8), UK (87.5), Ireland (78.8), Canada (60.0), New Zealand (58.8), Netherlands (51.2), US (51.2), Norway (47.5), Singapore (47.5), Sweden (45.0). Anglophone bans drive the top three; institutional infrastructure drives the rest.

The top 10

The Anglophone top three — bans drive the lead

Australia, the UK, and Ireland share a common pattern: all three have specific contract cheating legislation that gives them maximum scores on the Legislation sub-component.

Ireland 2019

The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) (Amendment) Act 2019 was the first specific essay mill ban globally. QQI has enforcement powers and has obtained court orders against essay mill websites.

Australia 2020

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Act 2020 extended Australia's existing TEQSA framework. Distinctive features include TEQSA's public list of 2,300+ known contract cheating providers.

UK 2022

The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 section 80 banned essay mill services in England. The Office for Students (OfS) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) enforce the framework.

The legislative model has proven replicable — all three countries followed the same supply-side approach targeting providers rather than students.

Numbers 4–7 — strong institutional infrastructure

Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, and the US score 51.2–60.0 — well below the legislative leaders but still in Q1.

Canada

The lowest Prevalence score in the entire dataset (P=4.90). The U15 universities operate strong institutional integrity infrastructure. Provincial regulation rather than federal. No specific essay mill ban.

New Zealand

Universities New Zealand coordinates the eight New Zealand universities. NZQA framework. No specific essay mill ban but the institutional foundation is mature.

Netherlands

The VSNU code binds all Dutch universities. LOWI provides national misconduct adjudication. Strong continental European institutional infrastructure.

United States

Highest detection deployment after the UK (R_det=80). Federal research integrity framework through ORI. The most marginal Q1 placement in the dataset — a small Prevalence increase would shift the US to Q2.

Numbers 8–10 — Q4 with strong R-Scores

Norway, Singapore, and Sweden have R-Scores of 47.5, 47.5, and 45.0 but are in Q4 not Q1. The pattern: strong institutional infrastructure with moderate Prevalence keeping them just below the Q1 threshold.

Norway

The Norway anomaly — high Prevalence due to Google Trends signal interpretation issues. The actual institutional response is genuinely strong (NESH guidelines, the 2017 Research Ethics Act, broad detection). R-Score reflects this.

Singapore

The strongest Asian response infrastructure. NUS, NTU, SMU operate strong institutional integrity. Q4 placement is borderline Q1.

Sweden

Post-Macchiarini reforms produced the NPOF national misconduct board (2019 Act). The R-Score reflects this genuine institutional strength.

Component analysis

Legislation differentiation

Three countries score 100 (Australia, UK, Ireland). Next highest: NZ at 40, Canada at 35, Singapore at 30, US at 30. The Legislation component shows the sharpest discontinuity in the dataset.

Detection deployment

Top: UK 90, Australia 85, US 80. The US Detection sub-score is exceptionally high relative to its overall R-Score — driven by near-universal Turnitin deployment despite weaker legislation and disclosure.

Disclosure infrastructure

Top: Australia 90, UK 85. TEQSA's public list of contract cheating providers is the most transparent regulatory disclosure in the dataset. Australia leads even the UK on this sub-component.

Penalties

Top: Australia 80, UK 75. Both have mature institutional code frameworks. Penalty consistency across the institutional sector matters as much as the existence of frameworks on paper.

Why number rankings can mislead

Three points to remember when reading the R-Score rankings:

1. R-Score doesn't include enforcement quality directly. A country can have strong frameworks on paper without consistent application.
2. Disclosure correlates with detection. Countries that disclose more typically detect more; the two sub-components are not independent.
3. Small-country effects. Smaller higher education systems (Ireland, NZ, Singapore) can implement consistent practice more easily than large federated systems (US, Germany).

What other countries can learn

The path to Q1 is clear:

1. Adopt specific essay mill legislation on the Irish, Australian, or UK model
2. Deploy detection infrastructure universally including AI detection
3. Mandate institutional disclosure of misconduct statistics
4. Maintain clear penalty frameworks applied consistently

Countries currently in Q3 or Q4 with the resources to act could realistically reach the Q1 floor (around R=50) within 3–5 years through coordinated reform. Reaching the Q1 ceiling (Australia's 88.8) requires the full legislative-institutional package.

Sources

• AMI v1.5 dataset and methodology
• National legislation documentation (Australia 2020, Ireland 2019, UK 2022)
• TEQSA public list of contract cheating providers
• Country-specific regulator documentation

Full methodology | Download dataset

Related

Explore the full dataset