Synergistic Governance of Research Integrity and Mentorship under the PI System: A “Co-construction” Model for Pharmacy Education
Mentorship Co-construction in Pharmacy Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31584/psumj.2026284965Keywords:
co-construction model, ethical leadership, mentorship alienation, pharmacy education, principal investigator (PI) system, research integrityAbstract
Objective: This study aims to dissect the institutional mechanisms of mentorship alienation under the Principal Investigator (PI) system in pharmacy education and to propose a systemic governance model for research integrity. The transition to the PI system, while boosting innovation, has inadvertently induced a “Pressure Cascade” that strains the traditional educational bond. This systemic pressure often rationalizes Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), which directly threaten the reliability of pharmaceutical research and national bio-security.
Material and Methods: As a theoretical analysis and policy perspective, this study integrates Social Learning Theory and Ethical Leadership Theory to deconstruct the mechanisms of ethical erosion and the “knowledge-behavior gap” within the laboratory microcosm. Furthermore, an institutional analysis is utilized to examine the structural constraints imposed by the PI system, specifically the invasion of instrumental rationality and the formation of an interest-bound community under rigid Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Results: Our analysis reveals that the PI system often forces supervisors to prioritize task leadership over explicit ethical management, resulting in a deficit of the “Moral Manager” dimension. To address this root cause, we developed the “Mentorship Co-construction” (Dao-Xue-Gong-Jian) model, which shifts the paradigm from unilateral supervision to systemic co-governance. The model synergizes three dimensions: 1) reconstructing bilateral subjectivity by establishing “Bilateral Integrity Pacts” at entry; 2) integrating ethics into the daily scientific process through the “Glass Box” protocol for routine data auditing and normalizing negative results; and 3) providing ecological support by decoupling tenure reviews from purely quantitative metrics and establishing an independent Ombudsperson System.
Conclusion: Safeguarding research integrity in the PI era demands a systemic reconstruction of the mentorship ecosystem. The “Co-construction” model offers a sustainable path to harmonize high-efficiency scientific production with high-standard ethical cultivation, ensuring the reliability of pharmaceutical research.
References
Resnik DB. The ethics of science: an introduction. London: Routledge; 2005. doi: 10.4324/9780203979068.
Central Committee of the CPC. Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese Modernization. People’s Daily 2024-07-19.
Emmerton L, Jiang H, McKauge L. Pharmacy students’ interpretation of academic integrity. Am J Pharm Educ 2014;78:119. doi: 10.5688/ajpe786119.
Ip EJ, Pal J, Doroudgar S, Bidwal MK, Shah-Manek B. Gender-based differences among pharmacy students involved in academically dishonest behavior. Am J Pharm Educ 2018;82:6274. doi: 10.5688/ajpe6274.
Maynor LM, Galvez-Peralta M, Barrickman A. Pharmacy student perceptions of academically dishonest behavior in skills activities. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2024;16:102093. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2024.04.009.
Haven TL, Van Grootel L. Preregistering qualitative research: a tool for trust. Account Res 2019;26:229-44. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147.
Shultz B, Mucksavage J, Goliak K, Phillips J, Thambi M. Investigating the perceptions and behaviors that contribute to student preparation for the NAPLEX exam. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2025;17:102228. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2024.102228.
McCartney J, Boschmans SA. Evaluation of an intervention to support the development of clinical problem solving skills during a hospital-based experiential learning program for South African pharmacy students. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2020;12:590-601. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2020.01.016.
Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
Mawdsley A, Willis S. Exploring an integrated curriculum in pharmacy: Students’ perspectives on the experienced curriculum and pedagogies supporting integrative learning. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2019;11:450-60. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.006.
Zhaksylyk A, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Kocyigit BF. Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading. J Korean Med Sci 2023;38:e405. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405.
Lei L, Zhang Y. Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: an analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997-2016). Sci Eng Ethics 2018;24:1409-20. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7.
Kretser A, Murphy D, Bertuzzi S, Abraham T, Allison DB, Boor KJ, et al. Scientific integrity principles and best practices: recommendations from a scientific integrity consortium. Sci Eng Ethics 2019;25:327-55. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3.
Donev D. Principles and ethics in scientific communication in biomedicine. Acta Inform Med 2013;21:228-33. doi: 10.5455/aim.2013.21.228-233.
Bouter L. What research institutions can do to foster research integrity. Sci Eng Ethics 2020;26:2363-9. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5.
Rodrigues F, Gupta P, Khan AP, Chatterjee T, Sandhu NK, Gupta L. The cultural context of plagiarism and research misconduct in the Asian region. J Korean Med Sci 2023;38:e88. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e88.
Johal J, Ward R, Gielecki J, Walocha J, Natsis K, Tubbs RS, et al. Beware of the predatory science journal: a potential threat to the integrity of medical research. Clin Anat 2017;30:767-73. doi: 10.1002/ca.22899.
Khabour OF, Alzoubi KH, Aldarabseh WM. Awareness of Jordanian researchers about predatory journals: a need for training. Sci Eng Ethics 2024;30:58. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00519-8.
Timmis K, Williams P, Karahan ZC, López-García P, Rainey P, Chavarria M, et al. Journals operating predatory practices are systematically eroding the science ethos: a gate and code strategy to minimise their operating space and restore research best practice. Microb Biotechnol 2025;18:e70180. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.70180.
Gøtzsche PC. Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? J R Soc Med 2022;115:31-5. doi: 10.1177/01410768221075881.
Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct. Account Res 2024;31:706-13. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268.
Bouter L. Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum. Account Res 2024;31:1255-9. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2185141.
Li D, Cornelis G. Defining and handling research misconduct: a comparison between Chinese and European institutional policies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2020;15:302-19. doi: 10.1177/1556264620927628.
Armond ACV, Gordijn B, Lewis J, Hosseini M, Bodnár JK, Holm S, et al. A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Med Ethics 2021;22:50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8.
Xie Y, Wang K, Kong Y. Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 2021;27:41. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9.
Kaiser M, Drivdal L, Hjellbrekke J, Ingierd H, Rekdal OB. Questionable research practices and misconduct among Norwegian researchers. Sci Eng Ethics 2021;28:2. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4.
Yi N, Nemery B, Dierickx K. Integrity in biomedical research: a systematic review of studies in China. Sci Eng Ethics 2019;25:1271-301. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0057-x.
Jin Y, Wei J, Zhang J, Luo S, Yuan L, Zou X, et al. A study on the knowledge, attitude, and practice of research integrity among medical professionals in Ningxia, China. BMC Med Educ 2024;24:1355. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06380-4.
Ayodele FO, Yao L, Haron H. Promoting ethics and integrity in management academic research: retraction initiative. Sci Eng Ethics 2019;25:357-82. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9941-z.
Adesanya AA. A proposed research misconduct policy for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. Niger Postgrad Med J 2020;27:250-8. doi: 10.4103/npmj.npmj_51_20.
Resnik DB, Rasmussen LM, Kissling GE. An international study of research misconduct policies. Account Res 2015;22:249-66. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.958218.
Godecharle S, Fieuws S, Nemery B, Dierickx K. Scientists still behaving badly? a survey within industry and universities. Sci Eng Ethics 2018;24:1697-717. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4.
Anekwe TD. Profits and plagiarism: the case of medical ghostwriting. Bioethics 2010;24:267-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00705.x.
Labib K, Evans N, Pizzolato D, Aubert Bonn N, Widdershoven G, Bouter L, et al. Co-creating research integrity education guidelines for research institutions. Sci Eng Ethics 2023;29:28. doi: 10.1007/s11948-023-00444-2.
Singhal S, Kalra BS. Publication ethics: role and responsibility of authors. Indian J Gastroenterol 2021;40:65-71. doi: 10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5.
Singhal M, Basu S, Sharma A, Singh P. Ethics: the elixir of publications. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2025;35:S30-5. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1791671.
Abdelhafiz AS, Ali A, Maaly AM, Ziady HH, Sultan EA, Mahgoub MA. Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of researchers towards using ChatGPT in research. J Med Syst 2024;48:26. doi: 10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4.
Agarwal A, Arafa M, Avidor-Reiss T, Hamoda TAA, Shah R. Citation errors in scientific research and publications: causes, consequences, and remedies. World J Mens Health 2023;41:461-5. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.230001.
Foo WL, Tester E, Close GL, Areta JL, Morton JP. Fueling soccer players: a scoping review and audit of literature related to soccer-specific guidelines for carbohydrate intake. Sports Med 2025;55:1467-85. doi: 10.1007/s40279-025-02224-3.
Phogat R, Manjunath BC, Sabbarwal B, Bhatnagar A, Reena, Anand D. Misconduct in biomedical research: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2023;13:185-93. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_220_22.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
