Given peer review is unpaid and so is authorship, I am curious as to why you think this is a provocative question? I would imagine that reviewing papers for fr

Given peer review is unpaid and so is authorship, I am curious as to why you think this is a provocative question? I would imagine that reviewing papers for free is usually considered part of 'service' to the field and the imagined tradeoff here has far more to do with whether the journal is influential or not, and almost nothing to do with pay or access policies.