Ndtyhij

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, Y annexed territory, Z 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?

Since you ask for a framework for thinking about it, I'll suggest that an action on your part that disadvantages the author, perhaps already a victim, won't bring justice. Probably better to ignore that detail and focus on what the author says, and honestly give the usual feedback.

If you want to try to deal with the unfairness of the annexation, there are other places that would be more appropriate and effective.

But your review is independent of any concept of "legitimization". You are giving a service to an author and a journal, not the occupying country.

This is a special case of a question about boycotts, but I see nothing in it that is unique to the situation of an academic reviewer as opposed to any other person needing to make a decision about whether to participate in a boycott of some group of people (other perhaps than the fact that a decision to participate will come at zero cost to you in this case). So, if you are looking for a framework for thinking about the situation, this is it.

Now, one thing you should expect people to tell you (I see it already in some of the answers here) is that your boycott could hurt an innocent person who may actually be a supporter of the same political cause you are trying to support with your boycott. That may be true, but is mostly beside the point - all boycotts have this feature, but many are still logical and useful means to peacefully achieve a political end with minimal harm to all parties involved.

Anyway, the decision of what to review is a personal one - I couldn’t even tell you what I personally would do without knowing the identities of X, Y and Z. As for whether to state the reason, if you do that then you effectively become a publicly outspoken political activist. Perhaps you are the kind of person who wants to play such a role - if so, go ahead, but know that this would incur risks to your reputation; there might well be people refusing to review your own papers down the road...

You can decline it as you choose. I would probably not bother to give a reason (will be seen as you making a stink.)

It's probably hard to decide where the exact boundary is to making these decisions also. (What feels right.) After all borders have moved around for thousands of years and usually for reasons of force.

I might lean a little towards doing the review but certainly nothing wrong with not doing it if it makes you uncomfortable. And not just for reasons of annexation but even if you have an antipathy to the other country.