You get that "flood of low-quality papers" on Arxiv but most researchers filter through papers daily and are generally capable of isolating the relevant and int

You get that "flood of low-quality papers" on Arxiv but most researchers filter through papers daily and are generally capable of isolating the relevant and interesting from the dull and unimportant. Probably a lot of citations to papers are somewhat dishonest with the Arxiv version being the only version that was read. From another researcher's standpoint, the peer review is not very important: you already know if you got scooped, you already know if you find something interesting enough to study as well. Peer review seems to have a purpose but it does not seem to be a quality gate keeping purpose. Perhaps enforcing orthodoxy is the actual purpose.