Basic paper outside area of expertise: reject or decline? It sometimes happens that I receive referee requests for theoretical papers which deals with the same phenomena I do in my research, but from a totally different specific theoretical starting point. I am familiar enough with the "competitors'" theoretical framework that I can read the papers, but they more often than not, it seems that the papers I receive are limited to only basic results of the kind I would not publish myself, but rather leave for my memoirs or a lecture note.

I realize that I am of course a bit biased, since I actively dislike that theoretical framework. For that reason I also have a hard time judging if the papers actually make some kind of incremental contribution, which would warrant publication. 

For these reasons, I mostly decline reviewing such papers. But recently I have started to doubt whether I am, in this way, a bit too soft. If everyone, who are not active researchers in that very specific theoretical framework, decline to review their papers, we just end up with a lot of sub-par research being published. On the other hand, I don't want to become one of those petty referees, who will only accept papers that does the kind of theory that I find best.

Are there any good solutions to this dilemma?
It sometimes happens that I receive referee requests for theoretical papers which deals with the same phenomena I do in my research, but from a totally different specific theoretical starting point...they more often than not seem extremely basic to me.


Given that you deal with the same phenomena from a different basis and achieve more advanced results (i.e., not extremely basic), can we conclude that your basis offers some advantage that is being overlooked (by proponents of the other technique)? If so, you could write a position paper that argues in favour of your starting point and against the other starting point. In parallel, you could ask a competitor to write a position paper that argues against your starting point and in favour of their starting point. Perhaps you could then combine your two papers before submitting for publication. Maybe the resulting paper will surprise you both!