A case involving alleged plagiarism and disputed authorship has raised fresh questions about transparency and editorial responsibility in academic publishing, after a journal removed a paper from its website without issuing a formal retraction notice.
The case centers on a philosophy article originally published in 2011 by researcher Silvia De Cesare in Implications Philosophiques. The paper examined a twentieth-century philosopher’s skepticism toward evolutionary theory, analyzing how this position conflicted with his broader philosophical framework. Since then, De Cesare has earned doctorates in ecology and philosophy and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Utrecht University, where her work focuses on evolutionary theory and concepts of progress.
In mid-2024, De Cesare discovered that a substantially similar version of her article had appeared in the International Journal of Applied Science and Research (IJASR) in 2020. The later publication reproduced most of the original text with minimal changes, aside from removing several footnotes, and listed Marcellin Lunanga Mukunda, affiliated at the time with the University of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as the sole author.
After being informed of the publication, Mukunda stated that he had not submitted the article and denied authorship. He suggested that his identity may have been misused, citing earlier incidents involving unauthorized access to his personal and professional information. No documentary evidence supporting these claims has been made publicly available.
De Cesare contacted IJASR to report the duplication and requested formal action. According to correspondence reviewed for this report, the journal acknowledged receipt of the complaint and indicated that the matter would be reviewed, with removal of the article anticipated if the listed author provided no satisfactory explanation.
Several months later, the article was removed from IJASR’s website. A representative of the journal confirmed that the removal was based on findings of “substantial plagiarism.” However, no retraction notice, editorial statement, or public explanation accompanied the removal. For a period of time, the article’s PDF reportedly remained accessible online despite its removal from the journal’s issue listing.
According to guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), journals are expected to notify readers of the outcome of plagiarism investigations through transparent mechanisms such as retraction or correction notices.
The absence of a formal notice has prompted concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Without a visible retraction, readers may remain unaware that the work was found to be problematic, particularly if the article has been cited or archived elsewhere.
Additional scrutiny has also been directed at IJASR’s editorial practices. The journal is not indexed in major databases such as Scopus or Web of Science, and its publicly available publication ethics policy contains text that appears to overlap with policies from an unrelated journal, raising further questions about governance and oversight.
IJASR has indicated that it is reviewing its submission and identity-verification procedures to determine whether the case represents identity misuse or a broader failure in editorial screening. As of the time of writing, no public update on the outcome of this review has been issued.
This case highlights persistent challenges in academic publishing, particularly in detecting plagiarism and verifying authorship before publication. It also underscores the importance of transparent post-publication corrections to ensure accountability, protect original authors, and maintain trust in the scholarly record.