As promised, here is a link describing an impending retraction on grounds of plagiarism:
link here.
I don't know yet what sort of statement the journal will make. Apparently this guy has a history of spending big on lawyers; perhaps the journal will tread lightly. Not that it matters in this case, given the Times Higher story.
And here is the statement of retraction:
link here.
I wish they were willing to use the word plagiarism. But "copied without proper attribution" is pretty clear -- the way plagiarism is defined.