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 2020-06
    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.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-02
    Repeated complaint. Although the manuscript that has previously been complained about has now been published in a revised form in a journal, the article has not been changed to a relevant extent in relation to the manuscript.
  • Advisory opinion 2020-01
    Follow-up to 2018-18 and 2018-19. Prior to the reflection audit, the interested parties should have recorded the procedure more accurately (and in writing) and clearly informed the petitioner about the procedure. The interested parties have not acted with sufficient care in setting up the audit procedure.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-25
    The alleged violation of research integrity took place unreasonably long ago (18 years) and/or the complainant waited unreasonably long to submit the complaint to the Research Integrity Committee. Moreover, at the time of the alleged violation the interested parties were not affiliated with the university.
  • Decision 2019-24
    The LOWI does not have the competence to process the petition and to give advice, because ZonMW was not affiliated with the LOWI at the time (by now it is).
  • Advisory opinion 2019-23
    Giving an interview is in this case academic practice of a popularizing nature. The Code of Conduct applies. A Research Integrity Committee is not required to incorporate everything put forward during a hearing into the opinion. It is sufficient for the report of the hearing to be included.
  • Advisory opinion 2019-22
    Although a scientist cannot be held responsible for the way in which research results are displayed by third parties, such as the press, the text of a university press release ís the responsibility of the scientist.