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.

  • Decision 2023-04
    Petitioner clearly does not use the right to complain for the right purpose. The petition only concerns a repetition of previous complaints. Petitioner excessively uses the complaints procedure, on such a scale that the procedure could never have been intended for this.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-03
    When a scientist participates in an advisory board this falls under the scope of ‘scientific and scholarly research in the broadest sense’ to which the code of conduct applies. However, the petitioner's complaint is unfounded.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-02
    Scientific integrity requires a scientist to always weigh up which principle should be given priority in the event of conflicting principles. The LOWI can clearly see that the Interested party has prioritized responsibility for maintaining confidentiality over transparency with regard to the specific meeting to which he contributed.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-01
    Complaint about a doctor. The case concerns a discussion paper in a scientific journal about the then prevailing Covid-19 policy. The doctor was not appointed for scientific research, only for patient care. However, this was not clear to the reader of the discussion paper. Therefore the complaint was nevertheless declared admissible.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-19
    Conflict between an external PhD-student and an associate professor. There is an unequal position, because the associate professor is in hierarchy above the external Phd-student. The conflict is about authorship and the order of authors.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-18
    Petitioner is an association that engages in a public debate and strives for a legislative change. More often complaints procedures are being used for the sake of a public debate. LOWI wonders whether CWI’s and LOWI are the designated organizations to handle these kind of complaints.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-17
    Complaint about a working paper. LOWI assesses various parts of the complaint which, according to Petitioners, have wrongfully not been assessed by the CWI. In the end, LOWI has the impression that this case is mainly about political controversy. CWI's and LOWI are not meant for this.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-16
    Professor complains that in violation of norm 52 a former colleague is chief-editor of a ‘predatory journal’. The LOWI rules that the arguments presented mainly question the good intentions and the actions of the journal, but don’t question the position of the defendant that he has nothing to do with the journal.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-15
    Manuscript of a dissertation does not meet the requirements of scientific integrity because there is (a lot of) plagiarism. In the Humanities this is considered a serious matter, even if in this case it does not concern plagiarism of ideas. LOWI expresses its concerns about the way the promoter has fulfilled his role.
  • Advisory opinion 2022-14
    Unfounded complaint. If a scientist gets involved in the public and scientific debate, it should not be too quickly stated by invoking the code of conduct that scientific integrity has been violated. It is not the intention of the code of conduct that scientists should hold back from meddling in the public debate.