On 9 November 2026, Retraction Watch published a report by Avery Orrall describing a case in which Elsevier says its investigation into plagiarism allegations is still ongoing, about a year after the authors of the paper in question asked for it to be retracted. Everything below is drawn from that report. The allegations are unproven, the authors deny wrongdoing, and no finding has been announced.
What Retraction Watch reported
The report concerns a 2025 paper by Cai et al. in Land Use Policy (October 2025) on soil conservation in China. The first author is Zheng Cai; the authors are at Northeast Agricultural University in Harbin, and last author Yuheng Li also lists the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The paper cites a 2023 paper by Begum et al. in Forest Policy and Economics on forest co-management in Bangladesh, co-authored by Lisa Lobry de Bruyn and then-Ph.D. student Flora Begum. The report also says two figures from a 2021 Begum et al. paper in the Journal of Environmental Management were reused in the 2025 paper without credit.
The allegations
According to the report, de Bruyn, of the University of New England, flagged similarities in figures and methods, saying they were very similar “with just a change in location and context”, and described “artful alteration of axis and repositioning of themes”. The report adds that Table 1 in each paper lists identical mean incomes for identical participant groups, along with other similar values. Begum is quoted as saying the similarities “raise serious concerns about potential plagiarism” and warrant a thorough journal investigation.
The authors’ position
Cai told Retraction Watch the paper “openly cites Begum et al.”, that the figures were redrawn from the authors’ own study sites and data, and that any resemblance “arises solely from the use of co-management theory”. He described the retraction request as “a proactive step” and “not an admission of any research misconduct or plagiarism.”
Timeline in the report
- 2 December (2025): de Bruyn emails the editors of both journals: Land Use Policy co-editor-in-chief Uchendu Chigbu and Forest Policy and Economics editor-in-chief Lukas Giessen.
- 3 December: Chigbu asks Cai to clarify the “serious plagiarism allegations” and copies an Elsevier employee, writing “Please retract, while I engage with the authors.”
- 4 December: Cai replies for the authors, denying wrongdoing but requesting retraction “to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity”, and saying the framework and empirical components need improvement.
- 5 December: Chigbu says the authors “did not address the plagiarism concern” and that the journal cannot retract on the stated grounds, asking for a specific response. Cai denies the allegations the same day. This is the last correspondence de Bruyn received from the journal.
- Afterwards: Cai says he has not heard from Land Use Policy or Elsevier since December.
Elsevier’s statement to Retraction Watch, as quoted in the report, was that the investigation “is ongoing and we are unable to provide any further details at this stage.”
What it shows
These are editorial interpretations, not findings in the case.
- Investigations can run for a year or more with little visible progress. In this account, the complainant’s last contact from the journal was within days of her email, and the authors report no contact for the rest of the year.
- An author-requested retraction is not automatic. According to the report, the editor said the journal could not retract on the grounds the authors gave, because they had not addressed the specific allegation. A retraction notice normally has to state a reason, so the stated reason matters.
- Silence is hard on everyone involved. A complainant does not know whether the concern is being assessed, and authors who deny wrongdoing have an unresolved allegation attached to a live paper.
What authors and research offices can do
- Keep a dated record of every submission to a journal and every reply, and ask in writing for the expected process and timeline.
- Where a journal is unresponsive, ask the publisher’s research-integrity contact for a status update, and involve the institution’s research integrity office, which can support complainants and respondents in parallel.
- Where an author wants a paper retracted, state the actual reason, so the editor can act on it. See our entry on retraction.
- Keep allegations and findings distinct in internal and public communication until the journal or institution concludes.
