Advisory opinions

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 2024-06
    This 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 2024-05
    Co-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 2024-04
    Publication 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 2024-03
    Former 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.
  • Advisory opinion 2024-02
    Interpretation of the NCCRI 2018. A complaints procedure only applies to scientific and scholarly research by students when this results in (scientific) publications. A published (master) thesis is not regarded as such a publication.
  • Advisory opinion 2024-01
    The complainant's lawyer violated the duty of confidentiality. In this case, the decision of the Research Integrity Committee to stop the handling of the complaint was not a proportionate response to this violation given its nature and limited seriousness.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-20
    Complaint has not been dealt with diligently since it was not forwarded to the RIC. LOWI advises to create a mailbox specially intended for the RIC and to publish the e-mail address on the website of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).
  • Advisory opinion 2023-19
    When a scientist violates the code of conduct this means that the issued complaint is well-founded. Also when non-compliance constitutes solely as a minor shortcoming. It is however desirable to clarify that well-foundedness does not necessarily imply research misconduct.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-18
    Repeated lack of due care in referring to the scientific work of Petitioner. This counts more heavily against the Professor who is also Petitioner’s former promotor (2023-17) than it counts against the other scientists involved.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-17
    Without sufficient justification a PhD-candidate was forbidden to criticize his promotor or his research. The PhD-candidate was therefore restrained in his academic freedom. LOWI holds this heavily against the promotor because of his position of power and lack of insight in this matter. Violation of research integrity.