This has already been discussed at ResearchGate several times. Here is a selection:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_researchers_think_publishers_journals_should_pay_for_their_content_and_also_for_peer_review/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_there_is_ever_going_to_be_a_time_peer_reviewers_will_be_paid_for_their_services_the_time_is_now/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_journals_pay_for_peer_review_work/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_open-access_journals_reviewers_do_not_get_paid_for_their_job/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_journals_pay_reviewers_and_still_sell_publications/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_journals_pay_to_reviewers_as_they_bleed_authors_for_publication_fees/1

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-the-article-reviewing-peer-review-in-Journal-and-Conference-is-a-voluntary-work/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reviewers_participation_should_be_considered_too/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-are-the-benefits-of-being-a-reviewer-for-a-journal/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Rewarding_the_work_of_the_referees/1

You want us to confront journalism?

Journalism is one of the tools of survival of the dominant paradigm. This dominant paradigm enslaves academics. A slave who thinks and spreads his thoughts to keep the scientific ecosystem afloat.

Their goals do not seem to be to discover the truth and defend the right.

Can we be scientific but not be slaves?

There should be equity in proceed sharing, hence reviewers deserve a certain amount of financial reward rather than this current practice

What happens when you pay reviewers?

"Two journals have released data from their own experiments that suggest that offering payments of around US$250 to researchers who review manuscripts speeds up the process, without affecting the quality of reviews. A six-month experiment at Critical Care Medicine, led by clinical scientist David Maslove, found that the motivating effect on reviewers was small. That might be down to “these other values that peer reviewers have, whether it’s a sense of responsibility or loyalty or owing to society”, says Maslove. At Biology Open, payment speeded up reviews so much that the journal is rolling it out more widely. But some specialists warn that the practice could have unintended consequences for science and publishing."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00968-6