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 2019-21
    Review of a thesis. In view of the fact that the interested parties have an appointment with the Open University (OU), LOWI assumes their ability to assess the petitioner's thesis, even though the subjects in that thesis do not coincide one-on-one with their own specific expertise.
  • Decision 2019-20
    The petitioner's complaint does not address a particular TU Delft employee, but Einstein. The petition is manifestly unfounded.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-19
    Master student complains about plagiarism and data falsification by thesis supervisor (PhD student) in poster presentation and interview. It is unlikely that research by a PhD student is entirely based on research that the Master student has devised and carried out independently. The parties use a different definition in their research. This can be part ...
  • Decision 2019-18
    Petitioner requests a revision of decision 2019-15. A request for review is only honored in the case of nova, which moreover are of such a nature that they may give rise to a different decision. The fact that the petitioner disagrees with the legal content of the decision does not constitute a novum.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-17
    Patient complains about doctor. A conversation or discussion between doctor and patient about a scientific subject is not scientific practice. A letter from a doctor to his patient is not scientific practice either. The fact that the patient says he wants to have a scientific debate does not mean that the same intention should be ...
  • Decision 2019-16
    The request is inadmissible because it was submitted too late by the petitioner's representative. The fact that the authorized representative is unfamiliar with the LOWI procedure does not make the term exceeding of the term excusable. Nor does the fact that the scientific research in question would be socially relevant. The LOWI does not issue ...
  • Decision 2019-15
    Request is inadmissible because it was submitted too late. According to the LOWI, the shipping theory (Article 6:9) from the Awb is not applicable. The petition was also submitted by email. This was not allowed at the time. NB: it is now possible to submit a request by e-mail.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-14
    In two English-language publications, the person concerned has copied substantial parts from scientific work by, among others, the applicant without referring to its origin. This is culpably careless. An important factor in this qualification is that the person concerned did not wish to rectify the English-language publications despite the advice to that effect from the ...
  • Advisory opinion 2019-13
    Repeated complaint. The LOWI recommends that in future cases more alignment be sought with strict jurisprudence on the concept of nova. The right to complain is not intended to repeatedly submit complaints about one and the same publication with different arguments or other alleged violations of standards of scientific integrity.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-12
    Well-founded complaint about data manipulation in various publications and parts of a thesis. The fabrication and falsification of data qualifies as a violation of scientific integrity. Scientists and others must be able to rely on the fact that all data presented by the petitioner as found data have actually been found. However, that trust has ...