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.

  • Decision 2020-12
    Inadmissible. 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 2020-11
    General 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 2020-10
    In 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 2020-09
    Rejection 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 2020-08
    The 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.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-07
    Members of the Research Integrity Committee are presumed to be impartial by virtue of their appointment, unless a special circumstance arises which gives a serious indication. It is up to the party concerned to make the special circumstance plausible.
  • Decision 2020-06
    The fact that the petition was only received by the LOWI after the deadline for submission is because the petitioner sent the petition too late and not because of the work pressure at PostNL because of the Coronavirus. Please note: it is now possible to submit petitions by e-mail.
  • Decision 2020-05
    The petition is directed against the procedural decision to extend the complaints procedure. That decision is not a provisional ruling about which advice can be sought from the LOWI.
  • Decision 2020-04
    Violation of standard 60 can only occur if it is very clear that there is no violation of research integrity. That is not the case here.
  • Decision 2020-03
    The adaptation of the author's contributions fully responded to the petitioners complaint. Therefore, the petitioner does not have sufficient interest in an opinion of the LOWI on the written refusal of the board to issue a provisional ruling.