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
Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) hastily pushed amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) through the Legislative Yuan, sparking widespread public concern. The legislative process was marked by opaque decisionmaking and expedited proceedings, raising alarms about its potential impact on the economy, national defense, and international standing. Those amendments prioritize short-term political gains at the expense of long-term national security and development. The amendments mandate that the central government transfer about NT$375.3 billion (US$11.47 billion) annually to local governments. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing local development, the lack
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) — who once endured the hardship of living under an authoritarian political system and arduously led a quiet revolution — once said: “Democratic issues must be solved with democratic means.” Today, as Taiwanese are faced with the malicious subversion of our country’s democratic constitutional order, we must not panic. Rather, we should start by taking democratic action to rescue the Constitutional Court. As Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) leads the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) in strangling Taiwan’s judiciary and depriving individuals of the right to recall and development, Taiwanese
RSS