This is a list of short summaries of advisory opinions. The list also includes decisions. In these cases, LOWI has declared the petition inadmissible. It has therefore not examined the substance of the petition and has not issued an advisory opinion.
By placing keywords in the search bar (click on the magnifying glass in the top right corner) you can search specifically within the advice.
The full text of the advisory opinion is only available in Dutch. If you want to read the full text in English, you can use the Dutch text for translation purposes.
- Advisory opinion 2024-12 and 2024-13Decisions of an FETC do not fall within the scope of the code of conduct. Although such decisions have consequences for scientific research, they are not themselves part of research practice. The administrative actions of the Dean in this case are also not covered by the code of conduct.
- Advisory opinion 2024-14Complaints about authorship and the course of events surrounding a PhD project are unfounded.
- Advisory opinion 2024-11Complaint about research on Sars-Cov-2 virus. LOWI deviates significantly from Research Integrity Committee advice because of additional information for the purpose of establishing facts. LOWI also differs from RIC in a more principled sense because LOWI qualifies several complaint components as professional differences of opinion that belong in scientific debate, not in a complaints procedure.
- Advisory opinion 2024-10Complaint has not been handled with the required care. The confidential advisors task is insufficiently separated from the KWI task (Research Integrity Committee). The principle of hearing both sides has wrongly not been applied. LOWI recommends reopening the investigation of the complaint and revising the complaints procedure.
- Advisory opinions 2024-08 and 2024-09Report commissioned by a commercial party is in accordance with standards of research integrity. Complaints procedure is not the right means for criticism on scientific quality. No compelling reasons to hear the parties separately. The parties were wrongly not given the opportunity to respond to the report of the hearing at which they were absent.
- Advisory opinion 2024-06This case seems to mainly revolve around a dispute between directors of a company. This should not be settled in terms of research integrity. Research Integrity Committees and LOWI are not authorized to judge intellectual property rights.
- Advisory opinion 2024-07VU bears no academic responsibility for the actions of the Interested Party. The KNAW does. Complaint is inadmissible. (see also 2024-08 and -09)
- Advisory opinion 2024-05Co-PI's name has been wrongly removed from grant application. No plagiarism. LOWI qualifies the violations of standards as questionable research practice for all defendants. Also for the associate professors who did not want to participate in the LOWI procedure as an interested party.
- Advisory opinion 2024-04Publication restrictions imposed on the Petitioner do not lead to the conclusion that standard 58 of the Code of Conduct has been violated (do not improperly delay or impede the work of other researchers). LOWI advises on how to proceed and on the institution's duty of care.
- Advisory opinion 2024-03Former co-supervisor complains that external PhD candidate has not made sufficient reference in his dissertation to, among other things, the origin of texts and to previously published own work. The complaints are unfounded except for one part: a reference is missing in a thesis chapter. However, this is just a minor shortcoming.