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 2020-17The 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.
- Advisory opinion 2020-16The authorship of the Interested Party should have been recognised. It would have been up to the Petitioner, i.e. the corresponding author, to ask the journal to allow more authors than the maximum number.
- Decision 2020-15Request for revision. The Petitioner asked the LOWI to investigate in connection with a possible breach of confidentiality during the LOWI procedure. The LOWI has no competence to do so and for this reason alone, cannot comply with this request.
- Advisory opinion 2020-14The Petitioner meets the first criterion for authorship of the ICMJE Recommendations. That is why he should have been offered authorship. Also in the light of the Petitioner's ultimate responsibility for the patients who are (partly) again involved in the repeated measurement, it was desirable to offer the Petitioner authorship.
- Decision 2020-13Inadmissible because the deadline was exceeded. A Petitioner who does not send a petition by registered mail takes the risk that the shipping history cannot be checked and proved if a petition is received late or not at all by the LOWI. The petition was also sent by registered mail. Its shipping history shows that ...
- Decision 2020-12Inadmissible. The Petitioner was not a complainant or defendant in the proceedings at the Research Integrity Committee (RIC). The Petitioner is an outsider who has a personal interest in the RIC investigation. Furthermore, the Petition was submitted too late.
- Advisory opinion 2020-11General principles of good administration also apply to the complaints procedure. Displaying a paraphrased text as quoted text is careless. In addition to the prevailing views on referral within the relevant field, it is important that scientists are not in all cases obliged to represent the history of science.
- Advisory opinion 2020-10In this case, various aspects of hearing and rebuttal are discussed. Furthermore, when taking measures, a board must take into account its duty of confidentiality that applies until the final ruling has been made, unless there are important interests that make it difficult to wait so long.
- Decision 2020-09Rejection of request for revision. The petitioner could and should have put forward all his arguments concerning the exceeding of the deadline in case number 2020-06 when the LOWI had asked him for an explanation of this during the review of that case.
- Advisory opinion 2020-08The duty of confidentiality is not absolute and can be broken by another, higher interest. Copyright stipulates that a work may not be revealed and reproduced by others without permission. Authorship as referred to in the Code of Conduct provides for substantial scientific contributions to be recognised.