Sometimes when a paper is revised, the reviewer will ask to quote several papers in the discussion of his own paper. This seems to be a very simple thing, just do it according to the requirements of the reviewers. But sometimes this is not the case, because the cited papers may be false.

Recently, fans have encountered such a thing. Some reviewers listed two articles that need to be quoted by fans in the discussion of the paper. After reading these articles in detail, fans found that the pictures may be repeated and suspected to be "fake" papers. So I checked the pubpeer website and found that many readers pointed out the problem of pictures, and there was a great possibility that the paper was faked, so I resolutely refused to quote it.

As more and more websites and readers forge these papers, more and more papers are withdrawn. Nowadays, many people worry that their articles cite "fake" papers, and then their articles will be withdrawn. Therefore, when quoting these articles, you'd better go to pubpeer's website to check whether they have been questioned or pointed out to be fraudulent. If so, you should be careful, because you don't know whether the journal will withdraw its manuscript, and once it is withdrawn, it is likely to bring trouble to your own article.

Although everything found on pubpeer website is not necessarily fake, it is better to avoid it carefully, so that your article will be safer. Because sometimes the articles pointed out above are questioned, some journals will not manage them, and some will withdraw their manuscripts in N years. In addition, some authors can make sense through debate, for example, because of the data loss caused by the relocation of the laboratory, too many experiments lead to picture errors. However, some strict journal editors don't buy this set. If they can't provide original data and records, they will withdraw the manuscript first.