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 2021-21The press release was insufficiently clear about the method and scope of the research. Because the release was issued before publication of the research, the general public could not verify its content. To that extent petitioner did not comply with Standard 53. In the opinion of LOWI, this qualifies as questionable behaviour (considerations 15,17,19).
- Advisory opinion 2021-20An individual combines employment at a consultancy firm with part-time professorship. Is the code of conduct applicable? LOWI weighs all relevant facts and circumstances to assess whether there is a scientific practice to which the code of conduct applies. The extent to which the individual has manifested himself as a scientist is also considered.
- Decision 2021-19Pursuant to the 2018 LOWI Regulations, only Complainants, Defendants or persons who have wrongly not been designated as such can submit an admissible petition to the LOWI (cf. 2020-12). The LOWI considers it correct that the Petitioners have not been classified as Complainants and sees no other option than to declare the petition inadmissible.
- Advisory opinion 2021-18Code of conduct applies to a legal opinion. The nature thereof may mean that not all standards from the Code can reasonably be considered applicable. In this case there is no question of violation of norms. The content of the legal opinion must be contested by Petitioner in legal proceedings, not with CWI or LOWI.
- Advisory opinion 2021-17The Board should have taken a more critical look at the CWI-advice. LOWI not only takes into account power imbalance between student and professor, but also that they have submitted an integrity complaint about each other. Under these circumstances, there is no indication parties are still willing to further investigate the issue together, as stated ...
- Advisory opinion 2021-16Complaint about a podcast. Not all standards from the code of conduct apply. A podcast is an audio product with a certain accessibility. In principle, the assessment must be against the standards and not against the principles of the Code of Conduct. The question is whether a scientist has exceeded a lower limit.
- Advisory opinion 2021-15The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018 applies to a statement that has been signed by various scientists and has been published as correspondence in a scientific journal. According to its nature and content it can be considered scientific practice and concerns scientific research in the broadest sense (art. 1.1 code of conduct).
- Advisory opinion 2021-14Scientist in the capacity of editor of a scientific journal. Code of conduct applies. Based on standards of scientific integrity, editors cannot be required to enter into a discussion with the author when an article is rejected. The scientist has not violated any standard of the code of conduct and is not to be blamed.
- Advisory opinion 2021-13Accusation of data falsification. The report of the ad hoc committee and the provisional opinion based on it have not been drawn up with the required care. All things considered, LOWI comes to the conclusion that it is insufficiently equipped to conduct the necessary fact-finding. LOWI therefore advises the Board to reopen the investigation.
- Advisory opinion 2021-12No plagiarism of ideas and no other reason why interested parties should have referred to the publication. No priority claim has been made and there is also no authoritative publication by the petitioner to which the interested parties should have referred from the point of view of scientific integrity.