When going through the review queue recently, a thought occurred: if reviewing things like late answers or close votes helps the site, why don't they give reputation? It would make sense to me that site users who take the time to go through the review queue and look over or improve posts that need help get rewarded with reputation. If reputation is supposed to be a measure of how much the community trusts a user, and how helpful to the community that user is, wouldn't it make sense to award rep for taking actions that help the community?
They've been pretty firm about only providing reputation for core actions.
Those core actions are considered:
- Asking questions
- Answering questions
The only other thing you can get reputation for doing is getting confirmed suggested edits. That's it.
Reviewing stuff isn't a core action, it's a purely optional, privilege based activity.
A major problem for reviews is so-called "robo-reviewers", who click through queues for the review badges without actually reviewing - they just hit approve on everything, letting all the crap through that the review queues are supposed to keep out. The SE staff introduced review audits on certain large SE sites to try and stop people from doing this.
A totally reasonable concern is that giving people rep for reviews will make them more inclined to do that.
But mainly it's just: rep is obtained by being helpful where people can critically examine you, and that's in public in questions and answers.