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 2026-08The petition was filed (one month) too late and is therefore inadmissible. No exception is made for the petitioner.
- Decision 2026-05The petition was filed (three months) too late and is therefore inadmissible. No exception is made for the petitioner.
- Advisory opinion 2026-04Complaint regarding expert report in civil proceedings. Substantive criticism of the report belongs in civil proceedings.
- Advisory opinion 2026-03Research misconduct complaint concerning an expert report in criminal proceedings. The type of criticism expressed in the complaint has no place in a procedure for establishing research misconduct. The appropriate forum to discuss the accuracy of the report is the judicial proceedings.
- Advisory opinion 2026-02Research misconduct or labor dispute? Research team's IT specialist complains about research misconduct. Complaint was handled fairly and is deemed unfounded.
- Advisory opinion 2026-01The complaint does not contain a clear description of the alleged research misconduct. Nor has it been made plausible that the petitioner participated in the medical-scientific research about which he is complaining.
- Advisory opinion 2025-18With his statements in the public debate, a scientist has failed to comply sufficiently with the standards set out in the code of conduct. This qualifies as a minor shortcoming.
- Advisory opinion 2025-17The CWI and LOWI cannot assess unacceptable risks to human subjects in research involving human subjects. This is the responsibility of the METC. Standard 7 does not require disclosure of the co-funder during the design phase of research. However, this is mandatory at the time of publication (standard 44).
- Advisory opinion 2025-16Complaint about research with social relevance can largely be traced back to a difference of opinion that does not belong in the scientific integrity complaints procedure. The advisory opinion also addresses the independence of research.
- Advisory opinion 2025-15Discourse analysis. The article that is subject of complaint is not so careless as to be a violation of the standards set out in the code of conduct. The procedure for assessing alleged research misconduct is not meant for discussion on the scientific quality of an article.