Ritchie’s solution to the Gagging Bill

Most amusing:

Richard,
I think, as an individual, you may still be free to blog as you wish. However, if you are commissioned to do research by Joseph Rowntree or Unite you or they will not be free to publish the results directly.
What I am thinking is if your report is tweaked and submitted to a free-to-read, peer-reviewed online academic journal, it might make life more difficult for the government.
If they try to ban the publication of legitimate peer-reviewed academic research, it would damage their reputation irretrievably. Would they really ban British Medical Journal? Or block international journals?
I think this could be a way forward.
Any takers to set up a new online journal of critical research? – See more at:

Hands up everyone who thinks that Ritchie’s reports will pass peer review?

14 thoughts on “Ritchie’s solution to the Gagging Bill”

  1. Of course, Richard considers that anybody who disagrees with him is not his “peer”… They probably have ulterior motives and cannot be trusted.

    It’s like the Fair Tax Mark which he claimed was peer reviewed, but was so full of holes it cannot have been challenged properly.

    Or his report for the TUC which contradicts the GAAR guidance.

    Or his corporate tax gap calculation which uses an incorrect method of averaging tax rates.

  2. I’m sure Tinky Winky, Dipsy and La La could be relied upon to gurgle and whoop approvingly at all of Ritchie’s reports

  3. Peer review is, in many cases, little different from allowing GCSE students to mark their friends’ exam papers. ISTR a former editor of the BMJ saying that 90+% of published peer-reviewed papers subsequently turn out to be wrong.

  4. There are peers and there are peers.
    Who is his peer? Perhaps peer review by Margaret Hodge MP, maybe the head of the TUC, perhaps someone senior at Oxfam.
    Peer reviewed just means someone else looks at it before its published, not that the research is actually any good.

    A couple of times at uni we were given a piece of research in a peer reviewed article and asked to pull it apart – as 2nd year students we managed that easily. Starting with the assumptions and moving to the facts that were not really facts but more assumptions.

  5. It all depends who the “peers” are, of course. And there’s no shortage of vanity (sorry, “open access”) journals out there funded by an author pays model. Leading academic librarian Jeffrey Beall calls them “predatory” publications arguing that the open access model undermines the quality of published academic work. He manages a list of these essentially exploitative journals – Richie might like to look and see if one fits his needs! Here’s the list http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

  6. “I’m sure Tinky Winky, Dipsy and La La could be relied upon to gurgle and whoop approvingly at all of Ritchie’s reports”

    Presumably Po would show his approbation from the other end.

  7. So I guess that lovely chat I’ve had with him this afternoon must have been me peer reviewing him, cos I don’t know shit. Don’t tell him.

  8. Pingback: Road Transport Markets | icycleliverpool

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *