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 2023-11
    Researcher insists on being a senior-author and does not accept a regular co-authorship. The other researchers in the team were correct in deciding to mention the researcher in the acknowledgments. The author contributions adequately reflect the contributions of the various authors.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-10
    Plagiarism in PhD thesis manuscripts. The LOWI asked itself whether it was sufficiently clear for the PhD-student that he was to be assessed and that this was not a learning moment. Yes. Violation of research integrity.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-09
    Complaint about withdrawal of co-promotership. The withdrawal is said to be based on an unjustified accusation of research misconduct by the supervisor and PhD candidate. Furthermore, the co-promoter complains with regard to a certain publication that the promotor was incorrectly presented as a co-author.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-08
    Researcher who refuses to approve the final manuscript and simultaneously refuses to give up his co-authorship did not delay or hinder the work of other researchers in an inappropriate manner (norm 58). The other researchers should nevertheless be permitted to publish the manuscript.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-07
    Scientific and public debate. The fact that the Petitioner is apparently not (yet) able to gain access to the scientific forum does not mean that his substantive objections to the work of the Defendant must be dealt with in the context of an integrity procedure.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-06
    There is no doubt about the fact that the dissertation deals only briefly with Zwarte Piet, because that figure actually played only a minimal role in the underlying research. No indications or arguments that the defendant would conceal this role.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-05
    The key issue in this case is whether the role of a professor should be investigated who was the last or co-author of various publications, of which it has already been established that these must be withdrawn due to malpractice.
  • Decision 2023-04
    Petitioner clearly does not use the right to complain for the right purpose. The petition only concerns a repetition of previous complaints. Petitioner excessively uses the complaints procedure, on such a scale that the procedure could never have been intended for this.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-03
    When a scientist participates in an advisory board this falls under the scope of ‘scientific and scholarly research in the broadest sense’ to which the code of conduct applies. However, the petitioner's complaint is unfounded.
  • Advisory opinion 2023-02
    Scientific integrity requires a scientist to always weigh up which principle should be given priority in the event of conflicting principles. The LOWI can clearly see that the Interested party has prioritized responsibility for maintaining confidentiality over transparency with regard to the specific meeting to which he contributed.