No! I do not mean “You can have free access to our journals for an year using this code; thanks for reviewing for us” mails that you get when you finish reviewing. ArunN makes an important point that FSP missed in her post on the benefits of peer reviewing:
Female Science Professor in Review well or die discusses the losses incurred by bad peer reviewing. According to her:
Bad reviewers and review-shirkers are annoying, especially since they rely on the reviewing work of others to get their own papers published, but I don’t think there should be any major overt punishment of bad reviewers. Although it may seem that review-shirkers are getting away with something, they are losing the opportunity to play a role in the peer review process, to be a constructive influence in their field, and to be respected by editors and others for their reviewing wisdom and efforts. That’s their loss, and an appropriate consequence for being a bad reviewer.
She misses one more important loss.
Peer reviewing provides an early peek into what is going on in your field of research expertise. As a researcher, this gives you invaluable insight about the cutting edge of your research field and what your peers are actually working on.If you do a bad peer review thereby stop receiving review requests eventually, but expect to do good research, you actually deprive yourself of this vantage of constant touch with the cutting edge.
And, ArunN goes on to argue that this vantage is true even if the paper itself is not cutting edge. I can not agree with him more.