This question has been discussed here several times before. Here is a selection of such discussions:

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/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/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

The practice of researchers reviewing journal articles for free while access to journal articles is often not free raises important questions about the publishing and dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Here are some key points to consider:

However, it's important to acknowledge the challenges and criticisms related to the current scholarly publishing model, which often limits access to research through paywalls and subscription fees. Many argue for open access publishing, where research is freely available to the public. In such a model, the peer review process might also need to evolve to accommodate new publishing practices.

In recent years, there have been efforts to address these issues, such as the rise of open-access journals, preprint servers, and collaborative platforms where researchers can share their work openly. Additionally, some researchers advocate for greater transparency in the peer review process itself, such as open peer review, where the reviewer's comments and identities are disclosed.

In conclusion, researchers engage in peer review for various reasons, including professional development, contributing to their field, and upholding ethical standards. While the current publishing model has limitations in terms of access, there is ongoing debate and innovation aimed at making scientific knowledge more accessible to all.

Here is a key point to consider: Give credit to an AI when you cut and paste its results.

Following on from David L Morgan 's point, I checked Gaurav H Tandon "answer" in copyleaks and it does give a very high probability of it being AI generated. It got me thinking, was Gaurav using a subtle approach to suggest journals could us AI rather than human reviewers rather than hm being an academic fraud not using AI and then not citing it as such. I checked his use of AI in other answers and it is the latter. He was not making the subtle point.

Daniel Wright I have encountered several cases of Gaurav H Tandon giving uncredited cut and paste answers from AI. So, there is nothing subtle about his habits.

David L Morgan , I kinda knew that, but if this was his only time it might have be he was being clever.

we get our research paper published free of cost. we review others paper and other review our paper.

Researchers engage in the peer-review process for academic journal articles without monetary compensation because peer review is a fundamental component of the scholarly communication system. While access to journal articles may often come at a cost, peer review serves critical purposes that advance the field of science. It ensures the quality, accuracy, and credibility of research findings. By voluntarily participating in peer review, researchers contribute to the collective knowledge base, helping to maintain the standards of scientific rigor and preventing the dissemination of poor-quality or flawed research. This system relies on the goodwill and dedication of researchers who understand the importance of the process in upholding the integrity of scientific scholarship. Their commitment to this essential task demonstrates a commitment to the principles of academic excellence, knowledge dissemination, and community collaboration that underpin the research enterprise, even in a landscape where access to research articles may be restricted or subscription-based.

Some enjoyable Quotes for my fellow AI expert researchers:

Quotes provided with due acknowledgement Ha Ha Ha .......

A. Inesia-Forde

• As far as I know, there's not a stereotype in the USA that Indian people don't communicate in English well. (Source: having lived here for half a century).
• The point is that anyone --- but especially someone associated with a academic institution --- should know that if you copy text from somewhere, you should include a citation for that text. ... If I got caught posting someone else's words without attribution, I would be embarrassed, and immediately try to remedy the situation. Apparently the culture on ResearchGate is very different. Almost invariably, when someone is caught --- it used to be copying websites, which was easier to confirm --- now post answers from a chat bot --- the person gets defensive, or more usually insulting. I can't imagine how anyone working for an academic institution thinks that the right response to be called out on an error or oversight, or simply being wrong, is to hurl insults. ... I also can't imagine how anyone posting these kinds of responses or responding with insults thinks that anyone reading these would hold the poster in any higher esteem. Why anyone does this is beyond me. No one is fooled into thinking that this person is adding anything of value. They're just wasting people's time, and lowering their assessment in the eyes of the reader.
• The larger point is that anyone who is interested in participating in these kinds of forums should be aware that copying a response from Chat GPT or similar devices isn't at all helpful for anyone looking for advice. I guarantee that if someone is able to navigate ResearchGate, they are capable of asking Chat GPT a question. This kind of response is as useless as saying "Google it". It doesn't add anything to the conversation, it just adds a bunch of worthless text that someone looking for an answer has to sort through to see if there's anything worthwhile.

Daniel Wright , Yeah CopyLeaks must be having a problem. It's saying my long response is human and a couple of other long responses on this thread are AI generated.

Here's what Chat GPT says:

"Is copying from ChatGPT plagiarism ?"

"Yes, copying content generated by ChatGPT without proper attribution can be considered plagiarism..."

( GPT 3.5, accessed 2023-10-03, https://chat.openai.com/ )

Now that wasn't hard, was it ?

If even ChatGPT says that reprinting its responses without citation is a form of plagiarism, then that that's good enough for me. LOL

Amulya Kumar Mahto , I do agree with your sentiment.

In the U.S. it seems like the most common model is that tax payers or undergraduate students pay for the research, the salary of the researchers, the salary of the technical editors and reviewers, and the cost of publication. And then a journal holds the copyright of resultant article and doesn't let anyone read it without a significant charge.

There are other models. There are some free and open access journals that are run by universities or professional organizations.

It seems that with how cheap and easy it is to post articles on the internet --- and that you can get volunteer reviewers and editors --- that this model should become more widespread.

I also think it's a good idea. Often people have interesting ideas or small studies that aren't worth spending $1000 on publication, but are worth others reading.

Such an approach might even further the publication of negative results, which may be valuable in some fields.

The question is Ok but he description is annoying and ludicrous. This not an approach or manner of an academic to write this way. I reserve the right to protest of such an awful attitude.

Moreover, the question posed has already been discussed many a times as described by Wolfgang R. Dick and after that the discussion here would have ended. But on the contrary Gaurav H Tandon came up with AI generated answer, which created a mess and his further discussing and insulting the fellow academicians is another form of uncalled for behavior ridiculing great academicians David L Morgan Daniel Wright and Sal Mangiafico who contribute to ResearchGate and provide their invaluable insights into research. This makes many sick and they avoid providing their inputs which is a great loss to novice researchers to benefit from.

After reading the thread I wanted to bypass but could not agree to ridiculing the famous authors. So, recorded my point of view. Thanks

There is a proliferation of AI answers on Researchgate. They're all long winded and unethical. Now, back to the question. Peer review is a great way to stay current in the field, the latest research methodologies, and problems. One can also see the quality of a journal. Top journals take all peer review into consideration. Unethical or low status? Fast publication to get the article processing charge.

The question refers to a contradictory situation in science in general and the scientific publication system in particular.

It is simply expected that scientists participate in the further development of their own academic discipline on the basis of a rational, method-based discussion. This goes hand in hand with the voluntary task of reviewing papers for scientific journals. This academic activity is not only part of the scientific culture, but also gives committed scientists a certain scientific reputation. And this kind of prestige is the real value in the scientific system, which cannot be replaced by an economic mechanism.

The fact that the majority of scientific journals are fee-based again makes it clear that the commercial exploitation of new scientific knowledge plays a major role. Large scientific publishers, which offer many specialised journals, profit greatly from the scientific findings of researchers who are often financed by public funds. And the members of the scientific community or their academic institutions have to invest a lot of money in order to access the scientific knowledge they have created - in the form of journal articles.

They publish it by taking the copyrights from the authors, this is actually something that a person who is doomed at some point does, at this point the author is aware of the transfer of ideas and scientific works, but he is obliged to announce the scientific result...