Thank you for listening to the podcast and writing about it. I’m going to make a few points. I don’t expect them to land with you due to your subjectivity, but I do wish to reply.

1. Hattie is currently being investigated and there are legal proceedings under way. Whatever you think of those investigations. I’m not going to prejudge them in a podcast. That would expose me to legal risk.

2. I think you’ve imagined my ‘audible excitement’ in the podcast. I’ve just listened back to it, alarmed at your claim, and I cannot hear it. You should retract this.

3. I do think it’s terribly sad when academics resort to legal proceedings and complaints rather than academic debate—even if these measures are necessary. That’s a comment on the situation and not on one or other party.

4. In the podcast, we use articles as a jumping off point to discuss relevant issues. I’m interested in plagiarism and as someone who writes a lot, the potential for inadvertent self-plagiarism. That’s why I wanted to discuss different kinds of plagiarism. I think you’ve inferred that I was suggesting any plagiarism on Hattie’s part is low level. That was not what I intended and would be contradictory to my position of not taking a view on the plagiarism claims—a position you criticise.

5. Similarly, I spent a lot of time explaining my disagreements with Hattie’s main method of research. Personally, I think that’s the most significant issue with Hattie’s work. You can disagree this is the main issue, but it’s odd you don’t even mention that we talked about this.

6. The mistake you made about goal-setting research is relevant, in my view. You admit you made a mistake. Why can’t I mention it? I can imagine that you don’t like it being raised but that doesn’t seem like a good enough reason, particularly as you present yourself as being thoroughly across all the details of Hattie’s work.