Lately I've found that this site over relies on non peer reviewed papers. Also, the Arxiv moderation process relies heavily on existing author reputation. I thi

Lately I've found that this site over relies on non peer reviewed papers. Also, the Arxiv moderation process relies heavily on existing author reputation. I think your categorization of good scientists as people who don't appreciate the peer review process leaves much to be desired. My personal experience is that peer review is the majority of the scientific process and if it feels tedious then your work is part of the mechanics you yourself admonish. In order to protect against misinformation, at the very least, this question about whether or not there's peer review is necessary.