[hooloovoo_zoo]

Judging quality/fraud is the role of a journal/conference, not arXiv. If a paper gets rejected does it come off arXiv? No. If a paper is never submitted does it come off? No. If a paper is retracted, does it come off? No. ArXiv should avoid making as many subjective determinations as possible.

[andy99]

I agree with this, it's actually a good reminder not to trust a preprint server. Arxiv already has an inappropriate air of validity, moderation will only make it worse.

(Incidentally, I don't think misplaced trust in preprints is much of an academic issue, people that are experts in their field can easily judge quality for themselves. It's laypeople taking them at face value that's the problem.)

[griffzhowl]

> people that are experts in their field can easily judge quality for themselves.

This case seems a counterexample though. Top economists Acemoglu and Autour went on record approving of the paper. The main flaws were only obvious to material scientists, and since this was submitted to an economics journal it's possible that if it hadn't been so hyped it would have slipped through peer review by economists