In my field, ArXiv has about the same level of credibility as Wikipedia or random journal articles from the International Journal of Sciency Science, i.e. trust, but verify. Among non-peer-reviewed documents, they rank below things like DoE or NASA reports and tend to not be cited.
There are preprints of articles since then published (which have the same credibility as the peer-reviewed article), articles form mates (which are obviously great), and the rest, which might be interesting but not a solid source on its own.
It seems to be working as intended, to be fair. ArXiv has precious little ways of improving the accuracy of the preprints.
There are preprints of articles since then published (which have the same credibility as the peer-reviewed article), articles form mates (which are obviously great), and the rest, which might be interesting but not a solid source on its own.
It seems to be working as intended, to be fair. ArXiv has precious little ways of improving the accuracy of the preprints.