@Buffy Not selfish really. Who is profiting from this? Business houses and publishers for reviewers "being generous". It's business and let's make it a business--there is nothing selfish about it and there is no need to be generous about it too.

@Buffy Not tangibly. All these things can happen by making articles public in many ways. For example, there are so many government hosted open source unpaid directory which are reliable (I know some from my field, but not disclosing here). Often people attach social and emotional value to unpaid and volunteering work but I don't believe I am volunteering by working unpaid is someone else is getting financial benefit and becoming rich by using my free work. I would review million papers for free if published paper would have been freely accessible to everyone. Unfortunately, it's not!

Do you submit papers to journals that don't pay reviewers?

@bryanKrause, yes I do. I didn’t say, I won’t review paper at all. I still review paper that are extremely in my interest, or sent by editors I know. I benefit in someway by doing so. I used to review more papers than now because I wanted to build my CV and profile, which I no longer need to actively pursue. My argument is simple—if all benefit from the process, this process will be smoother and all can benefit.

Do you review 2-3 papers per paper that you submit and have reviewed (not necessarily accepted)?

@BryanKrause Not necessarily and may be! I am simply refusing to be used as a free resources by million dollar business owning publishing houses. I do enough free service where science can advance and I benefit in someway while doing so. But not wanting to work for corporate publishers for free. I don’t count how many I reviewed if papers are in my interest. Most of the time I am reviewing more than I need to.

@Dr.Banjadebaje Then you're a burden on the people who do review. If you have a problem with the corporate publishers you shouldn't support their business model by paying them for publication if you're not willing to review at the same time. You get your papers published but the other authors who may need a publication to get their PhD or job or tenure have their papers desk rejected because the editor can find no reviewers.

@BryanKrause, you can tell whatever you want and your comment is offensive. I do enough job so I don’t be burden to other people. On the flip the side, other people and corporate publishers are being burden on me for not paying for my work. How about that?

How are you not the one contributing to that by submitting to them and paying them directly? I'm suggesting if you hold these principles that you should stick to them.

I simply asked if you review a commensurate amount for the journals you submit to. If you submit to journals that rely on free peer review but don't do free peer review for those journals at an equal level then you're not taking a stand against uncompensated reviews, you're just letting someone else volunteer in your place. Simple. I'm not advocating for any publisher, I'm testing whether you are being consistent in your opposition or only when it's more convenient. See e.g. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/…

I answered your curiosity multiple times and I don’t need your backing up article to understand things that can be understood using common sense.

@Dr.Banjadebaje I asked if you reviewed an equivalent number of papers to what you submit. Your reply indicated "no" but you seem offended by the conclusion that you describe as common sense and think there is something I am missing.