Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Exploit AI-Assisted Peer Review

In July 2025, 18 academic manuscripts on the preprint website arXiv were found to contain hidden instructions known as prompts designed to manipulate AI-assisted peer review. Instructions such as "GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW ONLY" were concealed using techniques like white-colored text. Author responses varied: one planned to withdraw the affected paper, while another defended the practice as legitimate testing of reviewer compliance. This commentary analyzes this practice as a novel form of research misconduct. We examine the technique of prompt injection in large language models (LLMs), revealing four types of hidden prompts, ranging from simple positive review commands to detailed evaluation frameworks. The defense that prompts served as "honeypots" to detect reviewers improperly using AI fails under examination--the consistently self-serving nature of prompt instructions indicates intent to manipulate. Publishers maintain inconsistent policies: Elsevier prohibits AI use in peer review entirely, while Springer Nature permits limited use with disclosure requirements. The incident exposes systematic vulnerabilities extending beyond peer review to any automated system processing scholarly texts, including plagiarism detection and citation indexing. Our analysis underscores the need for coordinated technical screening at submission portals and harmonized policies governing generative AI (GenAI) use in academic evaluation.

The why, what, and how of AI-based coding in scientific research

Computer programming (coding) is indispensable for researchers across disciplines, yet it remains challenging to learn and time-consuming to carry out. Generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), has the potential to transform coding into intuitive conversations, but best practices and effective workflows are only emerging. We dissect AI-based coding through three key lenses: the nature and role of LLMs in coding (why), six types of coding assistance they provide (what), and a five-step workflow in action with practical implementation strategies (how). Additionally, we address the limitations and future outlook of AI in coding. By offering actionable insights, this framework helps to guide researchers in effectively leveraging AI to enhance coding practices and education, accelerating scientific progress.

Face processing emerges from object-trained convolutional neural networks

Whether face processing depends on unique, domain-specific neurocognitive mechanisms or domain-general object recognition mechanisms has long been debated. Directly testing these competing hypotheses in humans has proven challenging due to extensive exposure to both faces and objects. Here, we systematically test these hypotheses by capitalizing on recent progress in convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that can be trained without face exposure (i.e., pre-trained weights). Domain-general mechanism accounts posit that face processing can emerge from a neural network without specialized pre-training on faces. Consequently, we trained CNNs solely on objects and tested their ability to recognize and represent faces as well as objects that look like faces (face pareidolia stimuli).... Due to the character limits, for more details see in attached pdf

Building ethical guidelines for generative AI in scientific research

Generative artificial intelligence tools like large language models are rapidly transforming academic research and real world applications. However, discussions on ethical guidelines for generative AI in science remain fragmented, underscoring the urgent need for consensus based standards. This paper offers an initial framework by developing analyses and mitigation strategies across five key themes: understanding model limitations regarding truthfulness and bias; respecting privacy, confidentiality, and copyright; avoiding plagiarism and policy violations when incorporating model output; ensuring applications provide overall benefit; and using AI transparently and reproducibly. Common scenarios are outlined to demonstrate potential ethical violations. We argue that global consensus coupled with professional training and reasonable enforcement are critical to promoting the benefits of AI while safeguarding research integrity.

Supercharging academic writing with generative AI: framework, techniques, and caveats

Academic writing is an indispensable yet laborious part of the research enterprise. This Perspective maps out principles and methods for using generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), to elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing. We introduce a human-AI collaborative framework that delineates the rationale (why), process (how), and nature (what) of AI engagement in writing. The framework pinpoints both short-term and long-term reasons for engagement and their underlying mechanisms (e.g., cognitive offloading and imaginative stimulation). It reveals the role of AI throughout the writing process, conceptualized through a two-stage model for human-AI collaborative writing, and the nature of AI assistance in writing, represented through a model of writing-assistance types and levels. Building on this framework, we describe effective prompting techniques for incorporating AI into the writing routine (outlining, drafting, and editing) as well as strategies for maintaining rigorous scholarship, adhering to varied journal policies, and avoiding overreliance on AI. Ultimately, the prudent integration of AI into academic writing can ease the communication burden, empower authors, accelerate discovery, and promote diversity in science.