I'm writing a commentary-ish paper on what NOT to do on peer-reviews. Like many of you here, I've received numerous reviews ranging from very good and constructive to absolute garbage.
Some of the notably bad ones include recommending rejection entirely because of the sample used or that the manuscript cited papers from authors the reviewer had a personal falling out with. Most questionable reviews are on the lesser side, typically including subjective interpretations (e.g., "This topic is not important") to just poor commentary with no clarification of their stance (e.g., "The authors claim X, Y, and Z. I don't agree.").
Now, my question is, is it permissible to quote examples of real bad peer-reviews in papers? The peer-review comments are also double-blinded (or will be anonymized) and won't be identifiable (and thus it would be hard to claim defamation here--but heck, I'm not a lawyer).
Would it even be recommended to use real examples (i.e., is there possibility of some form of retaliation)?
I would believe that using real examples would hold more weight but I can also imagine slightly altering them to avoid issues down the road.
*NOTE: I'm also writing a blog-esque type commentary on toxicity in academia where I would cite real examples of academic workplace toxicity. A possible spin-off question would be whether the answers to the two questions above is the same for quoting real cases of toxicity.
Edit: Per Anyon's comment, comments of original nature are likely to be construed as copyrighted from a legal standpoint (including peer-review comments). That being said, I believe quoting real peer-review comments will likely need to be credited to "Anonymous Reviewer" for those obtained via double-blinded review.