Editorials Assuring research integrity in the wake of Wakefield BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2 (Published 18 January 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2 Article Related content Metrics Responses Peer review Related articles Feature The Lancet’s two days to bury bad news Published: 18 January 2011; BMJ 342 doi:10.1136/bmj.c7001 Editor's Choice Institutional and editorial misconduct in the MMR scare Published: 19 January 2011; BMJ 342 doi:10.1136/bmj.d378 See more Commentary: I see no convincing evidence of “enterocolitis,” “colitis,” or a “unique disease process” BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6985; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6985 Institutional research misconduct BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d7284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7284 Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6823; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6823 Commentary: We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6979; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6979 Is research safe in their hands? BMJ January 19, 2011, 342 d284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d284 Cited by... The Inside Scoop on the Wakefield FiascoFulltext
