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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS