There is a wide consensus among policymakers and practitioners that while access to education has improved significantly for many children in low- and middle-income countries, learning has not kept pace. Information is a key building block of a wide range of strategies that attempts to tackle weaknesses in service delivery and accountability at the school level, even where political systems disappoint at the national level.

Technology, greed, a lack of clear rules and norms, hyper-competitiveness and a certain amount of corruption have resulted in confusion and anarchy in the world of scientific communication. Not too long ago, scientific publication was largely in the hands of university publishers and non-profit scientific societies, most of which were controlled by the academic community. The issues involved are complex – how to manage technology, accommodate the expansion of scientific production, rationalise peer review, break the monopoly of the multinationals and, of great importance, instil a sense of ethics and realistic expectations into the academic community itself.

Only a select number of school-level accountability initiatives in low- and middle-income countries have reduced corruption; improved managerial, parental, and teacher effort; and led to more efficient targeting of reforms and resources. These limited successes, too, appear to be context-specific and difficult to replicate. It is not enough to put information in the public domain and hope that it enhances accountability, especially since marginalized parents and communities have the least amount of time, resources, or influence to take up the reins of structural change. Information interventions need to consider carefully the audience, design, and presumed causal pathway to improved service delivery.

Early research findings on academic corruption suggest that accreditation and quality assurance bodies in some countries are having success in handling the problem, but questions about how to deal with the unwieldy issue remain a work in progress. And while the topic is complex and multifaceted, research on student attitudes towards cheating offers some insights into how an emphasis on integrity might reverse the problem, which has long been the scourge of the higher education accreditation profession.

The International Monetary Fund has unveiled a new blueprint for tackling the global scourge of corruption, conceding that its approach to the issue has been “uneven” in the past. The new policy isn’t perfect, but, if implemented, could represent an important step in throwing the IMF’s weight behind global fight against corruption. While these steps are welcome, by framing corruption exclusively in economic terms, the new policy overlooks the way in which corruption’s corrosive social impact has far-reaching economic implications. For example, it does not direct IMF staff to analyze or document governments’ social spending, such as on health and education.

The government-funded apprenticeship 3aaa was placed into immediate administration, putting 4,500 apprenticeships at risk, after the Department for Education pulled all of its funding from the firm following the police investigation of fraud. The DfE’s Education and Skills Funding Agency allocated more than £31m to 3aaa last year for apprenticeships and adult learning schemes.

According to a report published by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the International Quality Group, corruption in higher education vary between countries but it highlights unethical, inappropriate, and illegal practices. Some examples include university leaders and professors with fake or undeserved doctoral degrees impacting on the governance of some Russian universities, ‘ghost advising’ or absenteeism by senior academics, delegating their responsibilities for teaching or supervision to junior colleagues or research students, is widespread in Kosovo, or students and teachers sexually harassing, threatening or harming academic teaching staff in Uganda.

Cheating among students has reached unprecedented levels worldwide from academic misconduct among Britain's Russell Group universities from 2014 to 2017; ongoing cheating among student-athletes to enter or to stay at universities in the United States; unauthorized exam assignment sharing in Switzerland; contract cheating in Australia to plagiarism in many Eastern European countries. If universities just declare their integrity but do not practice it, they might not be able to expect it from students.

Corruption is “a pernicious undercurrent” in every country, writes a researcher at International Higher Education at Boston College. In Armenia, Lithuania, Russia, and Ukraine, instructors face the dilemma of either ignoring cheating or taking the risk of dismissing students whose fees sustain the university. One study in Russia found that 72% of students in public universities had plagiarized from the internet. In India, the “survival of many small private universities depends on payments to government officials, recruiters and visiting committees, and fees paid by non-attending students”.

The Josephson Institute, which conducts a survey of high school students every two years, reports that while 50% of students admit cheating, 93% are "satisfied with their own ethics and character". A professor at Rutgers University also suggests that half of their students cheat at least once a year. To demonstrate a united global front against cheating, Member institutions from the International Centre for Academic Integrity participate in the 5th annual Day of Action Against Contractual Cheating.