Core Viewpoint - The incident highlights the need for a reevaluation of academic ethics in the AI era, particularly regarding the use of prompt injections in academic submissions and the implications for peer review integrity [24][25][23]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A paper from the team of researcher Xie Saining was found to contain a hidden prompt instructing AI to provide only positive reviews, which was not visible to human reviewers [5][8]. - The revelation sparked significant backlash in the academic community, leading Xie Saining to publicly apologize and emphasize that such actions are unethical [9][10]. Group 2: Internal Review and Findings - Xie Saining acknowledged that all co-authors share responsibility for problematic submissions and recognized the need for more thorough checks of submission documents [15][20]. - The incident originated from a misunderstanding by a student who took a tweet about prompt injection seriously and applied it in a paper submission without fully grasping the ethical implications [20][22]. Group 3: Future Steps and Ethical Considerations - The student has updated the problematic paper and sought formal guidance from the Association for Research in Computing [21]. - Xie Saining emphasized the importance of educating students about ethical research practices, particularly in new fields influenced by AI, rather than solely punishing them for mistakes [22][23]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The incident raises questions about the current academic system's vulnerabilities and the need for deeper discussions on evolving research ethics in the AI age [23][25]. - There is a call for more comprehensive policies to address the challenges posed by AI in the peer review process, rather than resorting to potentially harmful tactics [19][25].