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 2020-09Rejection 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.
- Advisory opinion 2020-07Members 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 2020-06The 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 2020-05The 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 2020-04Violation 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 2020-03The 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 2020-02Repeated 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 2020-01Follow-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 2019-25The 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.