AI持续入侵全球学术圈，顶尖学府也难幸免。最近，香港大学一知名教授因此卸任。 10月，一篇关于香港生育率的论文在国际学术期刊《China Population and Development Studies》（《当 代中国人口与发展》）发表，作者是香港大学社会工作及社会行政学系博士生白某，通讯作者为该校社 会科学学院副院长叶兆辉。一个月后，有网友发现，这篇论文引用了总共61篇参考文献，其中有24篇是 AI虚构的，甚至虚构文献中有的署名作者为叶兆辉本人。 港大就此事展开长达近一个月的调查，并于12月17日完成调查，确认论文部分引用了AI生成的虚假文 献，论文已申请撤稿。据科学网12月21日消息，涉事论文于近日正式撤稿，出版方声明称，"无法核实 至少24个参考文献的来源"。香港大学宣布，论文通讯作者、社会科学学院副院长叶兆辉已卸任相关职 务，博士生将按纪律程序处理。有港大学生推测，涉事博士生可能面临退学。 叶兆辉是人文社科领域的重量级学者，此前担任香港大学社会工作及社会行政学系讲座教授、社会科学 学院副院长、防止自杀研究中心总监。今年6月，他被国际学术网站Research.com列为"全球顶尖科学 家"第49位， ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ethical implications of embedding prompts in academic papers to influence AI reviews, highlighting a recent incident involving a professor and the need for a reevaluation of academic integrity in the AI era [2][4][15]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A recent investigation revealed that at least 14 top universities had research papers containing hidden prompts instructing AI to give positive reviews [3]. - The incident involved a paper co-authored by NYU assistant professor谢赛宁, which was found to contain such a prompt, leading to significant scrutiny [4][6]. Group 2: Professor's Response - Professor谢赛宁 acknowledged his responsibility as a co-author and group leader for not thoroughly reviewing all submission documents [10][11]. - He clarified that a visiting student misunderstood a joke about embedding prompts and applied it to a submitted paper, not realizing the ethical implications [12]. Group 3: Ethical Discussion -谢赛宁 emphasized the need for a deeper discussion on research ethics in the age of AI, advocating for constructive dialogue rather than personal attacks [15][24]. - The incident raised questions about the current academic system's handling of AI in peer review, with some arguing that embedding prompts could be seen as a form of self-protection against AI reviews [20][26]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The article points out that the increase in AI-generated papers has led to a shortage of reviewers, pushing some to rely on AI for evaluations, which could compromise review quality [30]. -谢赛宁's case serves as a catalyst for further discussions on establishing reasonable constraints to improve the peer review environment [31].