Should academics be paid for peer review?

It has always been a disgrace that academics have not been paid for peer review services. The vast profits made by the publishing houses are boosted substantially by theses gullible and easily exploited workers. the academic world needs to wake up to economic reality.The old 'service for the love of my work and my contribution to the world' philosophy. A kind of Mr Chips syndrome preserved by academics in a world dominated by greed is a quaint symbol of our naivety.

I completely agree with Curleyprow comment. The tradition of peer reviews being done for free has brought many pitfalls which is also indicative of why most peer reviewers decline many invitations to review.

We can and should move away from journal-based publishing anyways. The deep learning community publishes almost exclusively open source papers; instead of relying on the publishers as gatekeepers, community sites like Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/ allow organic emergence of respected papers. Too-good-to-be-true papers are also quickly debunked by the community. For conferences, open review (https://openreview.net/about) is another alternative which again encourages wider community engagement and circumvents the need for publishing houses.

Peer reviewers should get payments from the open access journals who are claiming article processing charges. peer reviewers are the sole contributors in process of publication and they should be paid for their services, no other choice. Where is COPE and other ethical committees, why no one taking care of the peer reviewers. Reviewers should immediately stop reviewing. It is sin to review without financial reward. Reviewers should stand themselves for their financial rights. Ethical boards should take solid steps to ensure payments to peer reviewers for their labour work.