Research-Integrity Case Recovery Leader

The mandate

Concerns involving duplicated images, inaccessible raw data, disputed authorship and undocumented analysis changes have entered quality, HR, legal and scientific channels with different thresholds. Some allegations concern honest error or poor record keeping; others could affect publications, collaborations or regulated work. Case age is increasing while research teams fear that ordinary scientific disagreement will be treated as misconduct. The research-integrity head departed after an external journal query, leaving an executive gap in triage, scientific independence and institutional response.

The first twenty days require a protected case census covering allegation, research context, data and material at risk, publication or regulatory dependency, reporter protection, respondent status, expertise need and decision authority. By day fifty, every material case needs a scoped question, preservation plan, conflict-tested panel and route distinguishing correction, authorship dispute, quality event, employment investigation and formal misconduct review. The ninety-day window must close priority cases without prejudging scientific findings or compromising regulated reporting.

Decision rights include assigning approved reviewers, establishing scientific panels, directing preservation through authorised owners, setting case communication and accepting evidential completeness before findings move to accountable bodies. The interim may remove conflicted reviewers and escalate immediate publication or patient-risk concerns. Misconduct determination, discipline, journal correction, regulatory notification, legal privilege, patent action and research discontinuation remain with designated committees, quality, counsel and scientific leadership.

The assignment must leave an institution capable of distinguishing error, disagreement and misconduct consistently. The leader will appoint or prepare a permanent research-integrity head, calibrate external expert panels and observe the successor lead two complex cases plus one journal or collaborator response. Handover will identify open data preservation, reporter protections, panel conflicts, regulated dependencies, publication actions, respondent rights and decisions reserved outside the function.

The remit excludes conducting scientific experiments, making misconduct or employment findings, legal advice, covert surveillance, authorship allocation, regulatory representation and publication retraction. The leader cannot equate poor results with wrongdoing, suppress legitimate dissent, expose reporters unnecessarily or allow hierarchy to substitute for scientific evidence. Scientific experts, quality bodies, journals, regulators, counsel and employment decision-makers retain their authorities.

Why this seat is open

The departure left scientific, quality and people processes receiving the same concerns without one neutral executive route. Journal and collaborator clocks continue while evidence and trust degrade. A fixed-term leader can restore protected triage, convene credible expertise and transfer fair case governance without determining scientific truth personally.

What you will own

• Build the protected case census across allegation, research context, data risk, reporter protection, respondent and authority.
• Triage concerns into scientific correction, authorship, quality, employment investigation or formal integrity review with rationale.
• Establish preservation, scope, expert criteria, conflict testing, panel instructions, communication and evidential closure.
• Protect reporters and respondents through confidentiality limits, non-retaliation, response opportunity and status updates.
• Coordinate publication, collaborator, patent, quality and regulatory dependencies without taking their formal decisions.
• Review panel reasoning for evidence, alternative explanation, uncertainty and separation of error from misconduct.
• Transfer case governance, expert rosters, open dependencies and successor-led complex reviews to permanent leadership.

Candidate qualifications

• Has led research-integrity or scientific-misconduct case governance in biopharma, academia or regulated research across international laboratories.
• Understands image, raw data, authorship, provenance, analysis change, publication, quality and regulatory dependencies.
• Can distinguish scientific disagreement, honest error, poor practice and potential misconduct through fair process.
• Has convened conflict-tested expert panels while preserving respondent rights and reporter protection.
• Brings credible collaboration with scientists, quality, people, legal, data governance, journals and regulators.
• Has handed high-sensitivity cases and external responses to permanent integrity leadership without losing evidence.

Non-negotiables

• Can work onsite in Basel and participate in weekly case panels plus monthly laboratory evidence reviews.
• Brings direct research-integrity case authority; general workplace investigations or quality audit alone is insufficient.
• Will not decide misconduct personally, suppress dissent, expose reporters or equate adverse results with wrongdoing.
• Has no undisclosed relationship with involved researchers, journals, collaborators, experts or external counsel.

1. 49 words maximum. Which fact distinguishes a scientific correction from a potential misconduct review?
2. 49 words maximum. How would you test an expert panel for conflict before sharing raw data?
3. 49 words maximum. What must the successor demonstrate during a journal response?