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 2021-05
    This case concerns an unfinished dissertation. The fact that different doctoral candidates are awarded a PhD on the same subjects, or that a supervisor supervises different dissertations on the same subject, does not lead to questions about research integrity.
  • Advisory opinions 2021-03 and 04
    Insufficient transparency about the funding of research. The organization that commissioned the research must be distinguished from the five companies that funded the research and that had an independent interest in that research. The LOWI considers that not mentioning these financiers is culpably careless.
  • Advisory opinion 2021-02
    No plagiarism. The Interested Party has published about the same scientific problem, but not about the same scientific idea. The principle of hearing and rebuttal requires that parties are given the opportunity to respond to an expert report.
  • Advisory opinion 2021-01
    LOWI endorses an inadmissible declaration of a complaint. A scientist who accuses another scientist of violating a principle of research integrity can be expected to be able to clearly and concisely formulate which action he believes constitutes a violation and why.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-22
    Pharmaceutical research. At its core, the Petition amounts to a scientific controversy. LOWI does not have the competence to judge scientific controversies.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-21
    In principle, a RIC is not obliged to share raw data with a complainant. All co-authors are responsible for a publication, but not equally. A member of the RIC supervised the PhD degree of the corresponding author and should therefore have excused himself. The identity of an expert is relevant in order to be able ...
  • Advisory opinion 2020-20
    In particular, the unjustified listing of a co-author is a serious violation, which according to the LOWI should be classified as a violation of research integrity. Scientists should not be judged on errors and carelessness in draft versions.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-19
    Sloppy referencing. In various publications the Petitioner has made insufficient references, e.g. to previous joint and own work. In the present case, the LOWI classifies this as careless (the least serious qualification). There is therefore no culpable carelessness or a violation of research integrity.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-18
    The Petitioner's complaint can only be traced back to the employment dispute between the Petitioner and the Board.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-17
    The Petitioner violated the duty of confidentiality. The LOWI prefers to issue an opinion on the substance and does not choose to leave the petition (further) out of consideration, which would also have been possible.