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 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 2025-18In this case, a researcher’s statements in the public debate failed to comply sufficiently with the standards set in the Code of Conduct. This was categorised as a minor shortcoming.
- Advisory opinion 2025-17The RIC and LOWI cannot assess risks considered unacceptable to humans in research involving human subjects. This is the responsibility of the medical ethics committee (METC). Standard 7 does not require disclosure of the co-funder during the design phase of research. However, this is mandatory when reporting results (standard 44).
- Advisory opinion 2025-16A complaint about research of social relevance was found largely to trace back to a difference of opinion that was not appropriate for handling in the procedure for complaints regarding academic integrity. The advisory opinion also addressed the question of research independence.
- Advisory opinion 2025-15This case involved a discourse analysis. The article that was the subject of the complaint was not found to be so lacking in care as to constitute a breach of the standards set in the Code of Conduct. The procedure for assessing alleged research misconduct is not intended for discussion of an article’s academic quality.
- Advisory opinion 2025-14The complaint in this case related to ‘advice provided by researchers’, as referred to in the Code of Conduct. The petition contained a compelling argument as to why the advice provided by the researcher in question was incorrect. However, the complaints procedure for investigating alleged research misconduct is not the appropriate forum for assessing the ...
- Advisory opinion 2025-13The complaint in this case was declared inadmissible because (1) it concerned a PhD thesis from more than 10 years earlier and (2) the other acts complained about were performed by the interested party in a different professional capacity (i.e. as a civil servant), to which the Code of Conduct does not apply.
- Advisory opinion 2025-12This complaint concerned a conflict dating back to 2016. The university’s complaints procedure stipulates a five-year period. It was not possible, therefore, to file a complaint nine years later.
- Advisory opinion 2025-11The complaint in this case was filed by a former PhD candidate. The advice issued was that the complaint should be declared inadmissible because the conflict was governed by the PhD Regulations and not by the Code of Conduct.
- Decision 2025-10The petition was declared inadmissible because it was filed too late. There was no question of an exceptional situation. If important e-mails often fail to reach the petitioner, that is a matter for which the petitioner himself is responsible.