I'm sorry. The journals do not have "staff" that peer review the journals. The peers of the authors, i.e. other authors do all the peer review. The only job of the journals is managing those lists of reviewers and assign reviews. With electronic publishing reducing costs, and software to do most of that "managing" there is very little value to those journals. Sincerely, libraries should pitch into a "common" pool. On a national basis perhaps, they should create a number of peer reviewed journals for the various topics.. and instead of spending that 20000$ per journal, they could contribute to the administrative infrastructure of those new journals which could then offer their content openly. I consider that my university's library funds would be better spent that way than paying the indecent fees for minimal contribution from the journals. I certainly know that as I reviewer I don't receive a dime from any of the publications that I review articles for. I think that is OK, but I don't think the indecent cost of subscribing to journals or publishing in open access is justified given that the vast majority of the potential cost of the peer review process is already being externalized by the journals.