> Unless the author(s) of something on the arXiv is established, and the paper says something like "submitted to so-and-so journal", you should take everything in arXiv with heaps of salt.
This implies the broad sweep that anything that passes peer review is more valid than anything that does not. I do not feel comfortable with such an argument.
This implies the broad sweep that anything that passes peer review is more valid than anything that does not. I do not feel comfortable with such an argument.