Dear @Bradut, I have never taken a single cent for! I do not like it. But it seems that such practice comes to be common nowadays! "Such a peer review charge (a reasonable one, of the order of perhaps $200 or less per round of review) would not only be affordable, but it might even help further lower the overall expenses of the highly selective journals by discouraging unrealistic submissions that merely take up the time of the referees of journals that are reserved for papers which are both valid and important when in fact the submission belongs in a less selective journal, one that publishes valid papers, but less important ones. Authors will still (rightly) try to get their papers published in the highest level journal whose refereeing standards they can meet, but they will lose time (as they already do now) by first submitting it to an unrealistically high-standard journal -- before it is rejected and they proceed to submit it to a more realistic journal. Having to pay will discourage frivolous submission, for which the only ones penalized today are the journals themselves, their referees, and ultimately the subscribers to that journal, who must pay the cost of the excess refereeing of rejected articles."

Of course, there are some arguments for! "A recent study suggests that “unpaid non-cash costs of peer review” undertaken by academics works out to £1.9 billion."

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/31/the-burden-of-peer-review/

Dear @Bradut, I have never taken a single cent for! I do not like it. But it seems that such practice comes to be common nowadays! "Such a peer review charge (a reasonable one, of the order of perhaps $200 or less per round of review) would not only be affordable, but it might even help further lower the overall expenses of the highly selective journals by discouraging unrealistic submissions that merely take up the time of the referees of journals that are reserved for papers which are both valid and important when in fact the submission belongs in a less selective journal, one that publishes valid papers, but less important ones. Authors will still (rightly) try to get their papers published in the highest level journal whose refereeing standards they can meet, but they will lose time (as they already do now) by first submitting it to an unrealistically high-standard journal -- before it is rejected and they proceed to submit it to a more realistic journal. Having to pay will discourage frivolous submission, for which the only ones penalized today are the journals themselves, their referees, and ultimately the subscribers to that journal, who must pay the cost of the excess refereeing of rejected articles."

Of course, there are some arguments for! "A recent study suggests that “unpaid non-cash costs of peer review” undertaken by academics works out to £1.9 billion."

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/31/the-burden-of-peer-review/

How strange is it! I was a reviewer not long ago. I did a review absolutely free. Surely, this process is very responsible and takes a lot of time, experience and knowledge. I was happy to be chosen as a reviewer of the famous scientific journal and was proud of this noble mission.Besides, it was extremely interesting In addition to it, in our region I'm a specialist of the attestation (expert) group.We expertize highly qualified professionals and do it absolutely free, too. I think, all the taxes can't be admitted.     

This is cheating... and just money making policy. These journals are ruining the Scientific Fraternity. 

Dear All,

„There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

But I would say …in your naivety.

Of course, one can be proud to be naive!

Dear Ljubomir,

I have been many times reviewer but nobody offered even a pin for it.

Recently, I have visited some Canadian journals for not to be so naive and I found they demanded 300 USD for publishing an article. Who knows how much is the share of a reviewer?

Dear Ljubomir. The same applies to me. I have been a reviewer many times, but nobody offered to pay me whatever, and frankly,..I did no expect to be paid. I am at present attending a meeting where I have reviewed two papers..nobody mentions paying me or anybody else who did the same job.

Dear Ljubomir,

Actually a 200$ considered to be reasonable and affordable in some countries, is extremely high for people earning average 300$ or less in higher education and research in some countries. For people earning above 2000$ monthly it is entirely true what you say, but i guess the reduction in number is highly significant for  articles originating in certain low income countries. Also PhD students, or fresh PhD's preparing to obtain a job have usually a low income, thus they are less likely to publish, not for quality reasons, but for financial reasons.

On the other hand, reviewing is a highly skilled work done without pay. Basically we have no income for the authors, no income for the reviewers and income goes to the publishers, while the scientific results benefits everybody. So the scientists get  nothing out the highest skill labor there is. On the long run this is very damaging for science itself.

Some journals charge high submission fees and claim that part of the submission fees are used to pay reviewers. Most journals that charge submission fees hardly pay reviewers, and those that pay reviewers, pay token or small amount. In my opinion, submission fees (if necessary) should not exceed 100 USD.

Better to reward reviewer indirectly rather than cash like access of journals free of cost for certain period of time, waiver in publication charge.