I don't tell lies about bad papers, only give some peremptory praise so that reviewers don't have ammunition to kill my submission. E.g. if a paper makes a fals

I don't tell lies about bad papers, only give some peremptory praise so that reviewers don't have ammunition to kill my submission. E.g. if a paper makes a false contribution X and a true contribution Y, I only mention Y. If I were to say "So-and-so claimed X but actually that's false" I would have to prove it, and unless it's a big enough issue to warrant its own paper, I don't want to prove it. Any ways, without having the raw data, source code etc for the experiments, there is no way for me to prove that X is false (I'm not a mathematician). Then the reviews will ask why I believe X is not true when peer-review accepted it. Suddenly all of my contributions are out the window, and all anybody cares about is X. The situation is even worse when the paper claiming X underwent artifact review, where reviewers actually DID look at the raw data and source code but simply lacked the attention or expertise to recognize errors. I'm not taking bribes, I'm paying a toll.