It's probably more a reflection on me than the authors, but one thing that stood out for me in this paper is that there is a spelling mistake in the conclusion ("spar phishing"), which immediately made it come across as poorly-reviewed and got me wondering if there are other mistakes that are outside of my expertise to identify.
To my understanding, papers on arXiv are NOT reviewed, which is the primary purpose of the platform. The idea, as I see it, is to allow papers to be published more quickly, at no cost, and freely accessible to everyone online.
I don't think this is a bad thing, because even with peer-reviewed papers, there are cases where they can be completely fabricated but still get published. You shouldn't rely on a single paper alone and should do further research if you have doubts about its content.
Comments
It's probably more a reflection on me than the authors, but one thing that stood out for me in this paper is that there is a spelling mistake in the conclusion ("spar phishing"), which immediately made it come across as poorly-reviewed and got me wondering if there are other mistakes that are outside of my expertise to identify.
To my understanding, papers on arXiv are NOT reviewed, which is the primary purpose of the platform. The idea, as I see it, is to allow papers to be published more quickly, at no cost, and freely accessible to everyone online.
I don't think this is a bad thing, because even with peer-reviewed papers, there are cases where they can be completely fabricated but still get published. You shouldn't rely on a single paper alone and should do further research if you have doubts about its content.