Hm. I find even some of the best journals in my field sometimes play tricks to inflate their perceived Impact Factor. One whose IF oscillates around an impressive 10, where one would not think they need to stoop to such things, did not update the IF listed on the journal website for two years or so because the new ones were a bit lower. Only when a new IF surpassed the old one did they update the website again.
There are people arguing that reviewers should be paid or otherwise rewarded, and I can understand that position. The problem is that he should not have accepted in the first place if he expected remuneration.
