I recently accepted a paper review based on an abstract.
On seeing the paper, at least one of the authors has listed their address as being within an unrecognized annexed territory, like this:
Author, X university, /annexed territory/, /annexing state/
I am interested in the community views on whether this is reason to decline the review. And, if so, should the reason be declared.
At the moment, I intend to decline as I do not wish to legitimize the annexation in any way. On the other hand, I also do not wish to discriminate against individual researchers.
How much should the decision depend on:
- the perceived quality of work?
- personal links?
- time since/extent of violence during annexation?
Can anyone offer a good framework for thinking about this?
Points of clarification:
- The authors do not use the term "annex", "annexed", or "annexing".
- It is widely considered an illegitimate annexation (shared with a majority of world states, UN)
- The annexing state is not required for geographical location/postal address (if anything makes it more confusing).
- I do not wish to act in a way that can be perceived as "activism", or to "create a stink"...
- My argument is that adding to the record with the annexing state included helps (albeit in a very minor way) its potential path to legitimacy. Please do rebut...
"Annexing" might not be the correct term in this case, perhaps "occupying" is more accurate, I'm not sure - I think the general point of the question stands either way...
It might be helpful to reference what policies journals typically have on this?