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 2022-17Complaint about a working paper. LOWI assesses various parts of the complaint which, according to Petitioners, have wrongfully not been assessed by the CWI. In the end, LOWI has the impression that this case is mainly about political controversy. CWI's and LOWI are not meant for this.
- Advisory opinion 2022-16Professor complains that in violation of norm 52 a former colleague is chief-editor of a ‘predatory journal’. The LOWI rules that the arguments presented mainly question the good intentions and the actions of the journal, but don’t question the position of the defendant that he has nothing to do with the journal.
- Advisory opinion 2022-15Manuscript of a dissertation does not meet the requirements of scientific integrity because there is (a lot of) plagiarism. In the Humanities this is considered a serious matter, even if in this case it does not concern plagiarism of ideas. LOWI expresses its concerns about the way the promoter has fulfilled his role.
- Advisory opinion 2022-14Unfounded complaint. If a scientist gets involved in the public and scientific debate, it should not be too quickly stated by invoking the code of conduct that scientific integrity has been violated. It is not the intention of the code of conduct that scientists should hold back from meddling in the public debate.
- Advisory opinion 2022-13Breeders complain about commission research. CWI and LOWI judge that animal scientists have not violated any standards from the code of conduct. Whether there are methodological errors or 'bad science' are points of substantive discussion that belong in the scientific debate. Not in a complaints procedure where scientific integrity is concerned.
- Advisory opinion 2022-12Petitioner has violated the code of conduct by violating the principle of due care. In the amended research proposal, Petitioner relied heavily on the Interested Party's previous research proposals and ideas. Petitioner should not have done so in this way. In view of Petitioner's position and experience, this qualifies as questionable behaviour.
- Advisory opinion 2022-11Spoiled PhD trajectory. Former PhD student has violated scientific integrity and exhibited questionable behavior with regard to, among other things, co-authorship. LOWI advises to provide feedback to the CWI that an accused scientist must in future be heard orally.
- Advisory opinion 2022-10Petitioner complains about information on the WUR website that he believes is misleading. The information shows the context and scope of a particular line of research. CWI rightly declared the complaint inadmissible because the code of conduct does not apply. See also 2021-15 and 2022-09.
- Advisory opinion 2022-09This case was about a statement on the Covid-19 virus that was published in the Correspondence-section of a renowned scientific journal. No violation of research integrity. See also 2021-15.
- Advisory opinion 2022-08The PhD candidate has not been recognized appropriately by the Interested parties in the grant application. One of them is the promoter. The Interested parties have not acted with sufficient care. Communication should also have been more transparent. No violation of scientific integrity.