Not long ago, I received an invitation from a foreign journal related to my field, asking me to be a member on the journal’s editorial board. Since the journal was related to my profession, and since it seemed the editing duties would lend an opportunity for more interaction with foreign academics, I thought it would be a positive development and therefore I accepted the offer.
To my surprise, when I checked the list of the journal’s editorial board members on the Internet the next day, the nationality after my name was given as “Chinese Taipei.” After I sent an e-mail asking them to change my nationality to “Taiwan” it was then changed to “Taiwan, China.”
So I wrote them again, emphasizing that my nationality was just “Taiwan” with no other additions. Finally, they replied, telling me that the issue had been corrected. I checked online again and it had indeed been changed to “Taiwan.”
To my surprise, the next day I received another e-mail saying that I was no longer eligible to be an editorial board member because, according to international regulations, “Chinese Taipei” or “Taiwan, China” are the only acceptable options for my nationality.
Since I refused to accept either, I could no longer serve as a board member.
As I had only been in contact with the editorial board office during the process, I assumed that the other editorial board members were unaware of the matter. As such, when I replied to the office, I also included all the board members to inform them of the matter.
In the e-mail, I said I did not know which international rule states that the nationality of an academic, whether an author, editor or reviewer, shall be decided by others.
I asked the journal not to mix academic affairs with politics.
Moreover, I attached the details of another foreign journal, which has a Taiwanese academic serving as an editorial board member, so they could see that other publications list the nationalities of their board members.
Soon after, a British professor at Cairo University replied to show his support.
The editorial office finally replied half a day later, claiming that there had been a misunderstanding on the nationality issue.
They said the problem was a result of computer settings and that it would be impossible to link my personal information if I did not choose either of the two nationalities provided.
Once again, I patiently replied to both the office and the relevant members, arguing that computers were invented to serve us — not the other way around — and we should not have to adapt to computer functions.
I also repeatedly stressed that the journal’s invitation was not a personal favor, since once I accepted the post I had a responsibility toward the journal and that is not something to be taken lightly.
I asked each board member to spend some time thinking about how they would feel if someone incorrectly labeled their nationality.
At the same time, I told all the board members that this was not the Olympic Games, which is an arena full of politics, and urged them not to bring such political machinations in academia. Unfortunately, it already seems too late for that.
Wu Pei-Ing is a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
RSS