Civil Engineering October 2022 | Vol 30 No 9

Civil Engineering October 2022 47 MANIPULATING THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM The intention is not to damn this UTCRCP technology and the positive development in concrete technology be- cause of a number of now obvious failures referred to here. The perception already mentioned is that the client pushed this to work to a state of self-deception, premature of technology ripeness. The selectively funded and supported friendly research outcomes have been described, but just as a reminder, no participants for the research had to tender openly to do the work; it was assigned to specific individuals. Even though their credentials may be above reproach, that is by defini- tion friendly research selection. This covert approach to openness and proper peer review process had also happened elsewhere and lessons had been learnt, “in the context of commercially driven scientific research today, where particular mechanisms of ignorance production can be identified. In this case, ignorance is the product of the reshaping and rechannelling of traditional practices of knowledge production, whose epistemic purposes are transformed in the process of fulfilling industrial interests. It is in this shift of purposes from epistemic to industrial that the product of the practice changes as well, in this case, from knowledge to ignorance.” 9 Personal experience with leading a PhD student on granular materials research in around 2015, also funded via dedicated funding to a friendly researcher, was that publications were held back and an embargo placed on research publica- tion. This embargo on publication is in contrast to the academic requirements for PhD publications, namely to be open and free of any funder restrictions or prescripts. The fact is, even though such proposed publications were not altered significantly, the client review had prefer- ence to the normal academic review and held the academic progress back. The UTCRCP research also created a perception that the implementation pro- cess was not widely peer reviewed, but with the client being in a position of dominance or authority they could force implementa- tion, as “acceptance” was purported to be widespread. This perceived approach clearly seems to verify the following quote: “Instead of emphasizing the prompt publication of reliable research results, the quality of which is assured by the peer review process, the industry reshaped publication mechanisms, emphasizing the breadth of the dissemination and undermining its epistemic quality” . 9 The control of the peer review process is not always an overt action, but the warning is when this becomes covert, equating to a disturbing manipulation behind the scenes. This harps back to the blueprint for agnotology creation: “The pharmaceutical industry not only exploited the resources of PR and academic ties in its favour, but also went further than the tobacco industry in controlling scientific research through the peer review system.” SECRECY? What is actually of main concern is that agnotology studies, even in engineering and science elsewhere, are increasingly exposed to secrecy and suppression. Pinto (2017) 9 refers to a number of authors who report, “the growing research on govern- ment secrecy – this has certainly been an important area for agnotology.” A well- published example is the delayed release of the observation of plate tectonics which remained classified USA military infor- mation linked to their undersea warfare efforts. The field of nuclear research is also heavily shrouded in secrecy with ac- counts of literal rediscovery of previously suppressed knowledge. The sinical view is that it at least acts as confirmation of the previous knowledge gained. In the current red tape driven, claimed open-tendered approach to SANRAL sponsored research, this aspect of secrecy only reared its ugly head down the track. Previous raw data from work sponsored by SANRAL on experimental sections, laboratory analysis, etc. had been relatively accessible in the past. The researchers involved in the current SANRAL research projects clearly function with an under- standing that all research information should be pooled, peer reviewed and evalu- ated to prevent repetition of discovering existing knowledge and to ensure the knowledge pool expands. The intention is also to focus on the areas of identified ignorance, albeit in the development phase of the total R&D life cycle. The focus here is not on the ills of capacity building, but here is a different take on how political myopia can cause additional distortions On the contracted researchers’ side, the glaring gap in new blood to be brought into the research world was hamstrung by prior research experience requirements (Google Scholar rating). Few persons in that young upcoming pool of potential researchers had yet had the opportunity to write any paper for a national or, even less likely, for an international conference or journal. Further to that, the realities of postgraduate studies at universities in South Africa were not properly appreciated or considered. There is lim- ited funding for full-time postgraduate students at present. Most of them are doing it part time, balancing work and studies. There is an increasing number of foreign students, par- ticularly from the rest of Africa, who study at South African universities because they are perceived as centres of excellence in the rest of Africa. The example is Agricultural Sciences and Economics at the University of Pretoria (UP), which fostered foreign students from the rest of Africa with great longer-term benefit. The benefit of transferring knowledge to the rest of Africa via such students facilitated the transfer of our local standards and methods elsewhere as well. That faculty at UP created very good and permanent links with these ex-students on their return to their countries of origin and contributed to their upward mobility paths in their various governments and organisations. In contrast, foreign students were prevented from partici- pating in the SANRAL programme. The current small pool of potential postgraduate students was therefore further reduced by this politically short-sighted approach. This perception is held irrespective of at which level and by which department such a decision was made. The blocking of foreign postgraduate students from this programme clearly missed the reality that South African engineering firms work increasingly more in Africa. There is clear acceptance of South African standards, guidelines, specifications etc. where exposure via such previous postgraduate students had taken effect. In other countries where this is not the case, the reluctant acceptance of the better Africa- specific solutions often follows a longer route.