I'm arguing that the solution to your concern is that the corporation and profit aspects be removed. The reason I prefer this angle is because science emphasizes the need to remove all or as much bias as possible and economic incentives inevitably induce bias' and restrictions that increase the problems I've already pointed out earlier.

The question of whether peer reviewers ought to be paid and how is a complex one that has many ethical considerations on either side of the argument. I strongly recommend you research this debate yourself if you are interested in the subject.