The scientific community, or the ministry of science of some country, or a university - might find that paying for peer review, for example, might be more effective in promoting good science than paying for publication.
Perhaps that should also be compensated but you're talking about another cost associated with publication (and even non-publication). Since there's no guarantee that reviewers even read the crap they are assigned to read, I don't think paying them is the best approach. It would perhaps be better to publish the names of the reviewers. And if you reject a paper, you have to go on the record with your gripes. I'm sure these policies would slow reviews down an awful lot though. Reviews are only supposed to uncover blatant errors I suppose, and not offer definitive endorsement of results.
