Introducing the Academic Misconduct Index

TL;DR

The AMI is the first cross-country index measuring academic misconduct prevalence and institutional response. It covers 39 countries, uses six dimensions, and draws on five live data sources. Modelled on the Corruption Perceptions Index. Published openly under CC BY 4.0.

Why this index exists

Academic misconduct — contract cheating, AI-generated submissions, plagiarism, exam impersonation, collusion, and data fabrication — costs universities, employers, and society in ways that are poorly quantified. Degree credentials lose value when they cannot be trusted. Research findings built on fabricated data mislead subsequent scientists. Professionals enter employment having gained qualifications through fraud.

Despite the scale of the problem, no systematic cross-country index existed before the AMI. Existing data was fragmented across national studies, institutional reports, and individual research papers. No framework allowed comparison across countries or tracking of change over time.

The CPI parallel

The AMI is structurally modelled on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), first published in 1995. The first CPI aggregated existing business risk assessments and governance surveys rather than commissioning new data — a pragmatic approach that allowed rapid deployment before more sophisticated data collection was possible. The AMI version 1.x follows exactly this approach.

The CPI demonstrated that a well-constructed index can shift policy, generate media attention, and create accountability pressure even without legal enforcement power. A country appearing near the bottom of the CPI rankings faces reputational and diplomatic consequences that create incentives to improve. The AMI aims to create equivalent accountability pressure in the higher education sector.

What version 1.5 measures

The AMI scores 39 countries on two axes:

Prevalence Score (P): Estimated rate of academic misconduct, built from six dimensions weighted by prevalence and severity.

Response Quality Score (R): How robustly institutions detect, investigate, and deter misconduct, built from legislation, detection tools, disclosure, and penalties.

Countries are assigned to one of four quadrants: Q1 (Best in class), Q2 (Aware and fighting it), Q3 (Crisis zone), Q4 (Probably not looking).

Key findings from version 1.5

China scores highest on Prevalence (P=99.98), reflecting the world's largest paper mill industry and the highest data fabrication rate in the Retraction Watch database. Australia and the United Kingdom score highest on Response Quality (R=88.8 and 87.5 respectively). The Q2 quadrant is currently empty — no country simultaneously shows high prevalence and a strong response, which is itself a significant finding.

What comes next

Version 2.0 will add expert perception surveys — modelled on the CPI's eventual addition of expert panels — once the index has an established audience. Coverage will expand beyond 39 countries. Country-level subject vulnerability scores are planned for a later version.

The methodology document, full dataset, and source code are available at academicmisconductindex.com under CC BY 4.0.

Cite as: Booth, F. (2026). Academic Misconduct Index, Version 1.5. academicmisconductindex.com