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...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!