Hi
I have made my points. The readers can note them.
We can go on and on forever discussing.
My summary about everything above is:
1. Why a reviewer shall be paid ?
a. A reviewer is a highly qualified, experienced, skilled and trained person in a specific field.
b. He/She is being asked to do a job in most cases (not other way round).
c. He/She is spending his/her time for an activity.
d. His/Her activity is part of a profit making system.
e. So he/she deserves a fair share of the money.
2. There are definite advantages of having paid reviewers (quality, response time, etc.)
3. For the point 1 above, there is no system/guideline in place. This could easily be worked out.
4. You wish that the reviewers do the review free of charge.
5. For this you
a. have n number of analogies,
b. have references (BTW Google is full of such from both the sides),
c. point at systemic issues (which can easily be solved),
d. indulge in vocabulary (leaving the main discussion point apart),
e. etc.
6. You discuss only why reviewing be done free.
7. You have no arguments why reviewing be not paid (other than my point 5 above).
8. You do not even wish to look at the benefits of paying reviewers as you are getting them free historically.
9. You are operating in only ‘justification’ (of existing system) mode and unable to see beyond.
One fine day you will notice one enthusiastic beginner publisher starts paying the reviewers and all rest will have to follow, else they will have to close down for the want of reviewers.
