Should I cite a preprint from arXiv in my literature review?

[MichaelOM]

I'm struggling to decide whether to cite a preprint I found on arXiv in my literature review. It's directly relevant to my thesis on quantum decoherence, but I'm unsure if referencing work that hasn't been through peer review is considered poor form or if it's acceptable with a clear notation.

[EllaB]

I actually used an arXiv preprint in my lit review last semester. It was directly on the decoherence mechanism we study, and it filled a niche that journals hadn’t yet covered. I labeled it clearly as a preprint and added a short note about its status and that I’d update if it got published.

[Benjamin_L]

My advisor warned me to treat preprints as provisional evidence. I kept them in a separate section, compared them to peer reviewed sources, and only used them to illustrate ongoing work rather than as the foundation for any claim.

[JeffreyTW]

I had one preprint that later became peer reviewed; I tracked the version and changed the citation to the final DOI after it published. It was a hassle but worth it for accuracy.

[Gregory.J]

I sometimes wonder if the real issue is not peer review but whether the idea actually matters for my argument. I drift between citing it and pretending it's not there.

[NathanS]

I’ve skipped preprints altogether because I felt they added noise and uncertainty.

[Elizabeth2]

One thing I did was to search for multiple versions on arXiv and compare the changes; if the method was used, I cited the version that actually described it. It felt like bookkeeping.

[EvelynTT]

Do you have a policy from your committee on citing arXiv preprints?