[throwawayiionqz]

Previous versions such as https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9810162v1 clearly link to the latest withdrawn version, with text in red and bold at the top. Researchers accustomed to the arxiv don't miss it.

Peer reviews don't catch some important mistakes. It does not guarantee much by itself.

[defrost]

I make no claim to peer reviewed journals being better, I simply noted that the linked article asserted that two thirds of arXiv STEM preprints are latter submitted to such journals.

> Previous versions such as https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9810162v1 clearly link to the latest withdrawn version, ...

Thanks for that note; that appears to apply to a succession of papers that each replace a prior version.

The statement made in the linked article that I quoted suggested that papers that are later withdrawn are NOT annotated to identify that have been withdrawn.

If we look to the latest version of that paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9810162

We can see that the author has added a comment:

> Comments: The paper has been withdrawn due to a crucial mistake in the arguments

but no other "meta" annotation has been added (such as the one you pointed out).

It seems the linked article is asserting that had the author NOT made that comment then there would be no other indication that paper had been withdrawn due to error.

In fact I'm not entirely sure what withdrawn means .. given the paper remains on the site.