[1] https://static.philippdubach.com/pdf/Attention_Dynamics_in_Online_Communities_Power_Laws__Preferential_Attachment__and_Early_Success_Prediction_on_Hacker_News.pdf
I asked someone who organised a workshop I had spoken at. If you haven't met anyone in the field, then look at the papers you cite, see if any of the authors of those papers can endorse you (you can see it at the bottom of a paper's ArXiv abstract page), and ask them.
[1]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5910263
If you want credibility, submit it to a journal. Journals don't require that the paper be on ArXiv.
The reason I submitted our paper to ArXiv was that it was accepted at a workshop that was peer-reviewed, but non-archival, so just wanted to be able to point people at something a little easier to reference than the workshop github page.
ArXiv is not for peer review, it's just for publishing.
I've seen a lot of post from Zenodo, but most of them were bad.
[I have no arXiv account anyway.]
I understand that but unless I publish my preprint somewhere it's hard to submit for review.
For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider [url-redacted]. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.
How does your platform work in an academic context?