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 2022-10Petitioner complains about information on the WUR website that he believes is misleading. The information shows the context and scope of a particular line of research. CWI rightly declared the complaint inadmissible because the code of conduct does not apply. See also 2021-15 and 2022-09.
- Advisory opinion 2022-09This case was about a statement on the Covid-19 virus that was published in the Correspondence-section of a renowned scientific journal. No violation of research integrity. See also 2021-15.
- Advisory opinion 2022-08The PhD candidate has not been recognized appropriately by the Interested parties in the grant application. One of them is the promoter. The Interested parties have not acted with sufficient care. Communication should also have been more transparent. No violation of scientific integrity.
- Advisory opinion 2022-07Scientist is removed from project after Twitter message and complains about it. The LOWI sees insufficient leads to test this behavior against the code of conduct. The fact that the Petitioner was expelled from the project falls outside the scope of the code of conduct and there is a labor dispute.
- Decision 2022-06LOWI will not (further) consider the petition due to the petitioner's violation of the duty of confidentiality. Besides: acting as a scientific advisor in itself can be scientific practice to which the code of conduct applies, but in this case it’s not.
- Decision 2022-05From a research integrity perspective, there is in principle no obligation for scientists to actually publish research that they have conducted.
- Advisory opinion 2022-03 and 04The shortcomings in this case cannot be regarded as accidental errors. However, wilful misconduct has been ruled out and therefore there is no violation of research integrity. The actions of the scientists were careless, and in one specific case reproachable. Furthermore LOWI notices that complaints procedures are legalizing and considers this not a positive development.
- Advisory opinion 2022-02See brief summary of Advisory opinion 2022-01
- Advisory opinion 2022-01Code of conduct applies to opinion in a renowned national newspaper that has contributed to the scientific debate about the costs of migration. Popular scientific statement. In the opinion scientific arguments have been used and scientific functions of the author have been mentioned.
- Advisory opinion 2021-22The biography in this case was a popular scientific publication. The requirements for source material usage are therefore less strict. When revising the biography, the scientist involved paid sufficient attention to source material that was not known at the time of the first edition but was known at the time of the second edition.