I think you're right to nitpick, but nitpicking the wrong thing. > and not send it to any journal. This, doesn't matter. The main point of my comment is "j

I think you're right to nitpick, but nitpicking the wrong thing. > and not send it to any journal. This, doesn't matter. The main point of my comment is "journal != peers reading the work". Which, of course, you could even say is true about ArXiv (fine to nitpick[0]). You can put on ArXiv and no one will read it or the only people who read it are not peers. You're right that submitting to a journal or conference (nearly) guarantees someone has read the paper. The thing though is "peer" is weakly defined. I recognize that it is contextually defined, but I'd hope from the context of my comment you can tell that I'm using "peer" to mean "another person well versed in the niche topic of the paper." This is different from "a person well versed in the topic of the paper." The niche matters. I explain more in this comment[1] Or to put it differently, just because someone read it doesn't mean they /read/ it. [0] I'll revise the quoted text to "Just because it is on ArXiv doesn't mean peers aren't or haven't reviewed it". Though we can nitpick a little more and say that if there are more than one author on the paper, a peer has been much more likely to have reviewed the work (not all co-authors review the works they are authors on...) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44587535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44587535