ArticleMedical education2026
Cheating 2.0: A reprofiling of the 10 most wanted test cheaters in the digital age.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cheating 2.0: A reprofiling of the 10 most wanted test cheaters in the digital age.Medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last issue of Medical Education Unleashed, Royal et al (2016) introduced the "Ten Most Wanted" test cheaters. Almost a decade later, significant changes in assessment format and delivery have altered the landscape of academic dishonesty. This paper revisits the original 10 cheaters, updates their statuses and identifies new contenders. Cheating remains a pervasive issue in medical education, exacerbated by the shift to online assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic. In medical education, cheating threatens assessment validity, patient safety and institutional reputation, and may correlate with future unprofessional behaviour. The motivations behind cheating are multifaceted. We use the 'fraud triangle' of motivation, opportunity and rationalisation as a framework to conceptualise some of these. This paper profiles the evolution of cheating methods, highlighting new digital-age strategies. An approach which combines authentic assessments, technological integration and promotion of academic integrity is essential to combat this enduring issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.