It's interesting how so many important papers are always on arxiv first. it makes me wonder what purpose peer reviews serves. I think also, this is to help establish priority over the result. So getting it up on arxiv is like a timestamp to avoid someone else deriving it at the same time and getting credit by having it published first.

▲

pepinator 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

Peer review is important for checking the correctness of the results, among other things. It's not uncommon to find big errors; small mistakes are everywhere.

	▲	drumnerd 8 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Peer review is of utmost importance. Any researcher can make mistakes. I can read papers and apply them, but I need expert opinion to trust the papers. I am not skilled enough in any but my specialties. I do see papers with outlandish claims and very weak support. This kind of excessively bold statement I see in many papers is a red flag for me.
	▲	trod1234 8 months ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Its easier to tear down than build up. Resilient structures are tested structures and last the longest.
	▲	jsbisviewtiful 8 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Questioning the importance of peer review seems like rage bait.

▲

lokimedes 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

The purpose of the (pre-print) arChive is to allow for a wider circulation during review. That many today simply leave their stuff on Arxiv without publishing is arguably a bit of “cargoculting”, as it signals legitimacy without any quality control.