A more apt analogy may be a journal's use of reviewers (referees) for professional papers. These are unpaid jobs, and typically an editor has to beg and cajole qualified people to spend time to do a review. And often, the paper sits on the referee's desk for weeks/months/years before being reviewed, or before the referee/editor decides he hasn't the time to do it and it needs to be passed on to someone else. In principle, the referee earns good feelings from the editor and thus gains stature in the community, but that's pretty intangible.
On the other hand, the journals have solved the problem of recriminations on referees for negative reviews. For the most part, referees are anonymous.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds