Peer review really not crowd-sourcable IMO. There is a general argument that an appeal to "free" labour is not sustainable, but it goes beyond that. At the hi

Peer review really not crowd-sourcable IMO. There is a general argument that an appeal to "free" labour is not sustainable, but it goes beyond that. At the highest levels of research in your area of specialty there are very few people who can provide useful feedback. These people tend to review each-other's work for the most pertinent facts (yes, somewhat circular but in my experience generally done well with good intention), other reviewers can chime in, but this might only address some of the more general things, like the stats in the method. Peer review is time-consuming, and you can easily burn-out on it if you accept. A recent journal had the model of "publish for free, just review 2 papers a year". It struggles to make it work. The only peer review that's relatively easy is when a paper is so terrible you out-right reject it, otherwise it's a lot of work. Making a stand as a PEER reviewer (I will only review for open-access journals) is not trivial either. At mid-level in your career you have many collaborators, and you're interested in their work, and the work of others in your field, and you want to make contributions. Almost certainly important work will come to you from Elsevier style journals. Almost certainly you'll want to say no, but you'll say yes.