Are you active in peer review?

Learn about new new trends in my research field.

 A conflict of interest or limited expertise. 

At least 2-4 four years are necessary for a serious review.

For peer-review I receive more that 20 scientific papers per year.

 Peer review must ensure the research quality of the submitted work. However, sometimes due to time constraints and workload it is not easy to simultaneoulsy review many papers at the same time. 

The amount of work involved in reviewing academic papers should be compensated with money. It requires a significant investment of time and expertise, which is often undervalued in academic settings. Just like you wouldn't ask a lawyer or an architect for free technical advice, researchers and experts shouldn't be expected to review manuscripts for nothing. 
I receive up to 8 request for review papers and I say no to 99% of them. 

I like to review because I myself am interested in learning more.

It depends on how well the manuscript is written.

A conflict of interest is a serious reason to reject a review.

2 hours are enough to work concentrated on the peer review process. 

I think, some more cash cash should also be given by publisher of Open access Journals, like Elsevier gives US$100.00 for Book proposal review.

Although I often feel the system is unfair (reviewers work without compensations/publishers generate big revenues) the idea to "pay" referees is certainly wrong. 

Being also assistant EIC of a T&F journal I also know how difficult is getting reviewers on board.
This problem gets worst when authors are from development countries.

The current peer review system needs a major overhaul. There is clear evidence that large publishers like Elsevier, SpringerLink are making billions of dollars annually by using ( read exploiting the hard work of) authors and reviewers without any compensation.

I stopped reviewing for Frontiers. They charge a lot for the APC, do not offer any significant waiver to authors and researchers from LMIC and expect the reviewers to perform peer review for them for free so that they can make more money

No! Thank You. I am not interested anymore

Till the time, commercial publishers keep getting free labour, they are not going to pay for Editorial or Review activities. There is no reason why can they not divert a small portion of hefty APC charged by them towards the reviewers. This is not about greed on part of the reviewers, but about fair remuneration for investment of quality time by a scientific professional. 

Agree, when completing a peer review, I consider the analysis and its interpretation and then carefully review the discussion, following this is the written comments to the authors which need to be phrased constructively this takes time at least 16 hours per review, while I have many competing demands on my time. 

Peer review ensures research quality but faces challenges like time constraints, reviewer fatigue, and lack of recognition. Many decline review invitations due to workload, and incentives remain minimal.