Institutional OSINT Collaboration Intake
Partner With Us on Institutional‑Grade OSINT Investigations
We collaborate with OSINT labs, academic research centers, forensic investigation units, data journalism teams, and institutional research groups to support long-form investigative dossiers, cross-border accountability projects, and evidence-led public-interest reporting.
We are not a rapid-response newsroom. Our work is dossier-based, evidence-led, and built for long-term public-interest accountability. Each investigation demands documentation, cross-checking, careful sourcing, source safety, and legal review. That is why we mainly work with institutional OSINT researchers and structured teams that can operate at depth and stay consistent under scrutiny.
Our investigative network operates across 1,000+ investigative news outlets and 25,000+ media properties. We publish long-form dossiers that typically run 15,000 to 40,000 words. We only enter partnerships with institutions that can deliver careful, repeatable, and legally defensible research for complex cases.
1,000+
Investigative outlets
25,000+
Media properties
15k–40k
Words per dossier
Cross‑border
Accountability focus
Network Brands — Slow Rotation
Hover = pause
OSINT research labs
We prefer labs that run repeatable workflows, keep archives, and can explain how each claim was checked.
University-based investigation centers
Academic centers that can support deep research, long timelines, and careful documentation are a strong fit.
Digital forensic research units
Units that can verify media, validate files, and provide clear technical notes we can review and cite.
Human rights documentation organizations
Groups that record harm carefully, protect vulnerable people, and keep evidence usable for accountability work.
Conflict monitoring groups
Teams that track events over time and can map actors, locations, and patterns without guessing.
Data journalism labs
Institutions that clean big datasets, find irregularities, and write methods that stand up in public.
Geospatial intelligence research teams
Teams that can confirm locations, compare satellite images, and show their working clearly.
Corporate accountability research units
Researchers who map ownership, money routes, procurement links, and decision chains behind companies.
Anti-corruption research institutes
Institutes that can trace power networks and show how rules are bent, bypassed, or rewritten.
Sanctions, illicit finance, and asset-tracing teams
Specialists who can follow money, track enforcement gaps, and document evasion tactics.
Supply-chain and environmental investigation labs
Labs that connect factories, extraction sites, shipping routes, and damage on the ground.
Archive and document analysis institutions
Teams that can handle court files, gazettes, registries, and long paper trails with patience.
Selection note
We mainly collaborate with institutions, labs, and organized research teams with written methods, verification habits, evidence storage routines, and real accountability. Individual researchers are considered only in rare cases where they can match institutional discipline and provide the same level of sourcing and safety practice.
Corruption and Governance
Coverage
Public procurement
Coverage
Political finance
Coverage
State capture
Coverage
Abuse of office
Coverage
Regulatory manipulation
Coverage
Shell companies and hidden ownership
Financial Crime and Illicit Networks
Coverage
Money laundering indicators
Coverage
Sanctions evasion
Coverage
Offshore structures
Coverage
Asset tracing
Coverage
Trade-based financial crime
Coverage
Illicit commodity flows
Human Rights and Conflict Documentation
Coverage
War crimes documentation
Coverage
Civilian harm analysis
Coverage
Detention and disappearance cases
Coverage
Militia and armed group mapping
Coverage
Disinformation related to conflict zones
Coverage
Open-source verification of incidents
Environmental and Climate Investigations
Coverage
Illegal mining
Coverage
Deforestation
Coverage
Pollution incidents
Coverage
Water contamination
Coverage
Land grabbing
Coverage
Extractive industry abuses
Coverage
Environmental regulatory failures
Corporate Accountability
Coverage
Supply-chain abuse
Coverage
Labor exploitation
Coverage
Beneficial ownership research
Coverage
Corporate lobbying networks
Coverage
Regulatory violations
Coverage
Cross-border corporate structures
Digital Influence and Information Operations
Coverage
Coordinated inauthentic behavior
Coverage
Propaganda networks
Coverage
Influence campaigns
Coverage
Platform manipulation
Coverage
Political advertising ecosystems
Coverage
Narrative amplification structures
Organized Crime and Transnational Networks
Coverage
Smuggling routes
Coverage
Criminal infrastructure
Coverage
Front companies
Coverage
Logistics networks
Coverage
Maritime and aviation tracking
Coverage
Illicit trade ecosystems
Watchlists
Coverage
Corporate
Coverage
Litigation
Coverage
Politics and Elections
Coverage
Disinformation Actors
Coverage
Crime Networks
Coverage
Sanctions
Geolocation and Chronolocation
Capability
Image and video verification
Capability
Terrain and landmark analysis
Capability
Satellite image comparison
Capability
Time-of-day and weather correlation
Network Mapping
Capability
Entity relationship mapping
Capability
Corporate registries
Capability
Political and commercial networks
Capability
Social graph analysis
Capability
Influence network mapping
Document and Archive Research
Capability
Court records
Capability
Procurement databases
Capability
Company registries
Capability
Government gazettes
Capability
Leaked datasets where legally usable
Capability
Historical archives
Capability
Legislative records
Digital Forensics and Verification
Capability
Metadata analysis where lawful
Capability
Media authentication
Capability
Source validation
Capability
Content provenance
Capability
Deepfake and synthetic media detection
Data Analysis
Capability
Large dataset cleaning
Capability
Pattern detection
Capability
Public database mining
Capability
Statistical anomaly identification
Capability
Procurement and financial irregularity analysis
Geospatial and Satellite Analysis
Capability
Infrastructure monitoring
Capability
Environmental change detection
Capability
Conflict-zone assessment
Capability
Maritime and aviation pattern analysis
Capability
Border activity monitoring
Disinformation Research
Capability
Narrative tracking
Capability
Coordinated amplification analysis
Capability
Bot-like behavior detection
Capability
Platform ecosystem mapping
Capability
Cross-platform influence operations
Step 1: Institutional Inquiry
A lab, center, or institution submits a request that explains its team, legal status, prior work, methods, and the kind of partnership it wants.
Step 2: Confidential Scoping
Our investigations desk checks alignment, sensitivity, risks, jurisdiction issues, and whether the topic fits a long-form dossier.
Step 3: Research Briefing
If approved, we agree on research questions, scope, evidence standards, timeline, source protection rules, attribution, and legal considerations.
Step 4: Evidence Collection and Verification
Partners work using lawful methods and keep evidence archived, repeatable, and clearly sourced.
Step 5: Editorial Integration
Our investigative editors review the findings and integrate them into dossiers, timelines, databases, and case files.
Step 6: Legal, Ethical, and Risk Review
Sensitive findings may go through legal review, right-of-reply steps, harm checks, and publication risk analysis.
Step 7: Publication and Attribution
Credit is decided by agreement and safety needs. Some partners are named; others remain confidential when risk is high.
Step 8: Post‑Publication Preservation
After release, we preserve the evidence package, archive key sources again, and document what changed so the record stays stable over time.
Our investigations require a high evidentiary threshold. Because our dossiers often run 15,000 to 40,000 words, research partners must deliver structured evidence packages with clear sourcing, repeatable methods, and confidence notes for major claims.
Standard
All findings must be source-linked or source-documented
Standard
Claims must be independently verifiable where possible
Standard
Screenshots alone are insufficient unless paired with archived links, timestamps, metadata, or corroboration
Standard
Chain-of-custody should be maintained for sensitive files
Standard
Archived copies should be preserved using recognized tools
Standard
A clear line must exist between confirmed facts, strong indicators, open questions, and hypotheses
Standard
Data must be lawfully obtained and handled
Standard
Sensitive personal information must be minimized
Standard
No deceptive access, hacking, credential misuse, or unlawful intrusion
Standard
All claims must be suitable for editorial and legal review
We only work with institutions that operate within lawful, ethical, public-interest boundaries. We do not accept material obtained through unauthorized access, credential misuse, malware, stolen datasets, or coercion.
No hacking or unauthorized system access
If access is not allowed, it is not acceptable for our work, even if the story is important.
No credential theft or phishing
We do not accept stolen logins, tricked passwords, or forced access attempts.
No impersonation to obtain restricted information
We do not support false identity tactics to get private records.
No purchase of stolen data
We do not buy stolen databases, dumps, or private caches.
No use of malware or spyware
No spyware, trackers, or harmful tools are allowed for evidence gathering.
No doxxing or unnecessary exposure of private individuals
We minimize personal data and protect non-public people whenever possible.
No harassment, entrapment, or coercion
We do not accept evidence produced through intimidation or pressure on targets.
Compliance with privacy, data protection, and media laws
Partners must follow the laws that apply to their work and jurisdiction.
Respect for source safety and vulnerable communities
Safety is not a footnote; it is part of the method from the start.
Public-interest justification for sensitive investigations
If harm risk is high, the public-interest reason must be clear and documented.
Established institutional identity
We need a real, verifiable organization with stable leadership and public presence.
Proven record of OSINT or investigative research
We look for work history that shows care, accuracy, and restraint.
Documented methodology
Clear notes about how you check claims and how you avoid mistakes.
Experienced research team
A team structure that can handle long timelines and high detail.
Strong verification practices
You must be able to explain why something is true, not just say it is true.
Legal and ethical compliance framework
Rules that keep work lawful, safe, and responsible.
Ability to work on long-form investigations
Dossiers take time; we need partners who can stay steady.
Secure communication capacity
Partners should be able to use safer communication when topics are sensitive.
Experience with sensitive subjects
We prefer teams who understand risk and do not get careless.
Ability to provide structured evidence packages
We need evidence bundles we can review, cite, and archive.
Editorial or legal review readiness
Work must survive tough questions from editors and lawyers.
Multilingual or regional expertise, if applicable
If you cover a region, language skill and local understanding matter.
We prioritize
Priority
Academic labs
Priority
Nonprofit investigation groups
Priority
Human rights documentation units
Priority
Data journalism centers
Priority
Digital forensic teams
Priority
Regional research institutes
Priority
Cross-border investigative collaborations
We do not publish rumor-based intelligence, politically motivated allegations, or material that cannot be independently verified. Our investigations are evidence-led and must meet a standard appropriate for long-form public-interest reporting.
Unverified claims
If it cannot be checked, it does not enter a dossier as a claim.
Speculative accusations
Guessing is not reporting, and it is not research.
Politically motivated dossiers without evidence
We do not run narratives that rely on loyalty instead of proof.
Hacked or stolen materials
Illegal access makes the work unusable for us.
Research based on harassment or doxxing
Abuse-based collection is rejected.
Anonymous submissions without provenance
We need traceable sourcing and context.
Private personal data unrelated to public interest
If it does not serve public accountability, we minimize it.
AI-generated claims without human verification
We require human checking and a clear chain of evidence.
Screenshots without source context
Screenshots alone do not meet our evidence standard.
Research that cannot withstand editorial or legal scrutiny
If it breaks under review, it does not get published.
Research Partnership
A lab or institution supports one investigation with defined research tasks and a clear handoff.
Dossier Contribution
A partner delivers a structured evidence file, timeline, network map, or data analysis to a larger dossier.
Joint Investigation
Both sides collaborate from scoping to publication with agreed roles, checks, and attribution.
Regional Research Desk
A local institution supports investigations in a specific geography, language, or subject area.
Thematic Monitoring Partnership
A partner tracks a topic over time, such as sanctions evasion, environmental crime, or procurement abuse.
Technical Verification Partnership
A specialist unit assists with geolocation, satellite review, media authentication, or mapping.
Named institutional credit where appropriate
When safety allows, we credit the institution clearly and accurately.
Anonymous or confidential contribution where safety requires
If risk is high, identity protection comes first.
Joint bylines for major collaborations
When the work is deeply shared, we can coordinate shared credit.
Methodology credit
We can credit methods and verification work without exposing sensitive identities.
Research appendix credit
Some dossiers include appendices where research units can be named by agreement.
Embargoed publication coordination
When timing matters, we coordinate releases and keep partners informed.
Confidential handling of sensitive partner identities
We keep partner details restricted to need-to-know access.
Plain statement
Attribution is decided case by case. Some partners will be named in the final dossier, while others may remain private due to security, legal, or operational risk.
Secure intake process
We keep intake structured so sensitive material does not drift across casual channels.
Encrypted communication options
When required, we can coordinate safer communication methods.
Need-to-know access
Only the right people inside the desk see sensitive items.
Sensitive source protection
We avoid exposure that could harm sources, researchers, or communities.
Secure document handling
Evidence packages are handled carefully with controlled access.
Data retention policies
We keep materials only as long as needed for the investigation and record needs.
Pre-publication risk assessment
Before release, we assess harm risk and publication exposure.
Protection for vulnerable sources and researchers
We take safety seriously when work touches conflict, crime, or abuse networks.
Security note
We treat sensitive research materials as confidential by default. Depending on the case, we use restricted repositories, controlled sharing, internal risk checks, and careful source protection protocols.
Institutional Research Partner
Delimitor is a structured OSINT group that focuses on building clear, checkable research trails.
Expanded summary
When Delimitor works on a case, they organize material in a way that editors can follow without getting lost. They label sources, keep copies, and show what they did step by step.
Their strength is discipline. They avoid drama, stay close to the evidence, and aim for results that can handle public questioning. That makes them useful for long dossiers where every claim must be backed.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Inferner is known for careful verification work that turns scattered clues into clean facts.
Expanded summary
Inferner does not rush. They take time to confirm locations, timelines, and connections before they call something true.
They are also strong at writing down how they reached a conclusion. That detail matters when an investigation needs to be reviewed by senior editors and legal teams.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Constitution Times brings a governance-first lens to OSINT, with attention to rules, records, and public accountability.
Expanded summary
They focus on how systems are supposed to work, then compare it to what actually happened. That is useful in corruption and abuse-of-office investigations.
Their research often points readers to the original records and official trails, so the proof does not depend on opinions or loud claims.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Indya Feed tracks signals across public sources and turns them into simple, readable research notes.
Expanded summary
They are good at scanning wide, spotting patterns, and pulling the few details that matter most. Then they narrow down and verify.
Their style fits investigations where early mapping is needed before deeper document work begins, especially when the story crosses regions and platforms.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
OSINTUR specializes in structured open-source verification with a strong habit of archiving.
Expanded summary
They treat every claim like a puzzle piece that must lock into place. If it does not fit, they do not force it.
Their evidence packages are built for replay. Another team can re-check the same steps and reach the same result, which is exactly what dossiers require.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Stealthur works quietly and focuses on risk-aware research for sensitive investigations.
Expanded summary
They are careful about what gets collected and how it gets stored. They avoid exposure that could harm sources or researchers.
That cautious approach is valuable in cases involving crime networks, conflict actors, or high-pressure political environments where careless sharing can create real danger.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
WWAIOR connects institutional researchers and pushes for stronger standards in open-source investigation work.
Expanded summary
They focus on consistency: common rules for sourcing, verification, and documentation. That reduces confusion when teams work across borders.
Their role is also about professionalism. They encourage methods that can stand up in courtrooms, newsroom reviews, and public accountability debates.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Redicaliser studies influence behavior, radical messaging, and how narratives travel across networks.
Expanded summary
They track how messages spread, who pushes them, and what patterns repeat over time. They look for coordinated behavior, not random noise.
This is useful in dossiers that examine propaganda systems, organized disinformation, or influence operations that target elections, conflict zones, or public trust.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Untrafficking focuses on documentation that supports real-world protection work around trafficking and exploitation.
Expanded summary
They handle sensitive topics with care. They avoid reckless exposure and keep the focus on public-interest proof and safety.
Their work is strongest when an investigation needs patient documentation, clean sourcing, and a clear line between what is known and what is still being verified.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Confederatur maps organizations, alliances, and power relationships that are visible in public records and open sources.
Expanded summary
They are strong at connecting the dots between entities, front groups, and decision structures that are designed to look separate.
That mapping helps long dossiers explain complex systems in plain words, so readers can understand how influence and control are actually built.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
On Ground News focuses on field-linked open-source work that prioritizes reality over online rumors.
Expanded summary
They look for what can be confirmed with solid material: location cues, time cues, matching sources, and consistent records.
Their contribution is valuable when a story includes incidents, harm claims, or contested events where bad information spreads fast and correction must be careful.
Website
Institutional Research Partner
Sanctions Watcher tracks sanctions, evasion tactics, and the money and logistics that move around enforcement.
Expanded summary
They follow shipping patterns, company networks, ownership links, and trade routes that help explain how restrictions are bypassed.
Their work fits dossiers that require slow, proof-heavy tracing. The value is in the paper trail and the repeatable logic, not in quick headlines.
Website
Question
Do you work with individual OSINT researchers?
Answer
We mainly work with institutions, labs, and organized research teams. Individuals are considered only in rare situations where their public track record, documentation habits, and verification discipline match institutional standards.
Question
Do you pay OSINT partners?
Answer
It depends on the collaboration model, scope, funding structure, jurisdiction, and editorial arrangement. Some work is contract-based, some is grant-supported, and some is co-publication. We confirm terms during scoping.
Question
Can our institution remain confidential?
Answer
Yes. Credit and confidentiality are handled case by case. If safety, legal exposure, or operational risk is high, we can keep partner identity private.
Question
Do you accept leaked data?
Answer
Only where it can be reviewed legally and ethically, and only after provenance and public-interest value are assessed. We do not accept hacked, stolen, or unlawfully obtained material.
Question
What kind of evidence package do you require?
Answer
We prefer structured evidence files with source links, archived pages, timestamps, relevant screenshots, method notes, confidence levels, and a clear separation between verified findings and open questions.
Question
Can we pitch an investigation?
Answer
Yes. Institutional partners may pitch proposals when they include a public-interest reason, early evidence, methods, jurisdiction risks, and what research outputs you can deliver.
Question
Do you co-publish?
Answer
Sometimes. Co-publication depends on editorial alignment, legal review, safety needs, and the scale of contribution. We confirm this before the work begins.
OSINT Desk Contact
Email OSINT Desk for Institutional Requests
If your institution can deliver careful OSINT work that holds up inside long dossiers, email us with your capabilities and prior work. If you are unsure where you fit, still write to us with a short overview and we will tell you the cleanest next step.