For the publication of any kind of texts, including reviews, the permission of the authors is needed. In the case of peer reviews, also the permission of the journal may be needed. See also these previous discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_peer-reviews_made_by_unknown_reviewers_need_permission_to_be_shared

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_source_where_I_can_read_peer-reviews

Dear Wolfgang R. Dick. I thank you for the reply.

In the case one has made a peer review for a paper submitted to a journal or conference, what if the journal or conference does not give any permission for publishing? How can this individual work named paper review be disclosed to all of the other peers who may be interested to?

Dear Krenar Ibrahimi : Unfortunately, there is no way to disclose a work when there is no permission by the copyright owner(s). Here is another example: I have a very nice unpublished text with remembrances of a deceased colleague. The heir of this colleague did not give me the permission to include this paper into a book, so it remains unpublished.

Dear Wolfgang R. Dick.

In my experience, and I suppose in that of any reviewer of papers submitted to a conference or journal, the paper review process has been a voluntary work. I have never signed any contract concerning copyrights about a review or whatever else on any paper addressed to me for review. Furthermore, there is no question of copyright ownership as long as the review has never been published - all we know that the reviews are not published, unfortunately, with the papers when these are accepted for presentation in a conference or for publication in a journal - this being the proper subject of my discussion in this thread.

The unique barrier in the absence of any contract is only some instructions in the form of, let say, ethical norms of conduct. But, when ethics and moral issues are in play, I think not to be wrong by saying that there are a lot of them favoring the reviewers and, in many other cases, the authors which are not taken in account by the conference organizers or journal editors/publishers, that is, those who invite the experts to accept reviewing the submitted papers. Alas, so many reviewers and editors, in my own experience, properly miss many ethical norms and values in profundity of themselves as long as their reviews, being blind and not disclosing their names, but not hiding their poor character, however, terribly lack of professionality, being either a torture for submitters who are neither well known nor part of their castes or relationship networks, or a cherry on the cake for the well known authors of papers who, as it has been often the case, add their name to a list of co-authors only to give the submitted paper "a heavy weight", even by never reading it.

I have been the testimony, as reviewer, of such a submitted paper in a very well known conference, called by its name annual meeting. Its two co-authors did never read this paper, full of grave conceptual and empirical errors, but added their names only for positive credits. Although the six other reviewers made only some lèche-botte reviews, it was rejected only because of my professional review. This did discover and argue an endless list of grave errors, from misspelling the name of one of the co-authors, to giving tens (>60%) of false, fictive, or incorrect references, to misunderstanding and ill explaining the key elements of the chosen method, to the misconception and misapplication of several formulas, to the miscalculation of several results, to some basic concepts ill formulated and/or explained, etc., etc. And it is properly against this kind of submitted papers and co-authors that I want to publish the review, and next to write a paper denoting the most typical errors made from both authors and reviewers, some of which made even express by the latter, being in the conditions of blind review and showing nothing else than cowardice, neither science, nor professionalism, by having this powerful right of writing by hiding their name.

However, the irresponsible researchers, like several government leaders throughout the world, have no scruples even when acting in any visibility of their names, like in RG questions, when many comments and replies may have quite or even no at all arguments (like "yes of course" or "following", etc.), are full or errors in English or computer style, and, furthermore, properly this kind of "researchers" receive many recommendations, which continue to be accepted by RG without any argument, just by clicking on the respective link, as you may find several ones also in the question you suggested in your first reply. This question (Do peer-reviews made by unknown reviewers need permission to be shared?), I remember you in the case you may have not noticed, has been asked by myself 3 years ago and, alas, does not bring nothing to be linked with the question I am asking here. And it is posed rhetorically by myself, because we cannot have any kind of possibility to ask permission for publication to unknown people, not only because we do not who they are, but also because the actual practice of journal editorial staffs and of conference organizers is so that one cannot receive any such permission, at least no names are disclosed, even when this one, as a reviewer, asks to communicate with another reviewer for exchanging ideas on the reviews they have made about the same paperwork.

It is properly asking for those individual practices and experiences that I have asked these two questions, but the so-called RG researchers, instead of giving their own experience or practice, do anything else, mostly by saying nothing of utile or useful.

Dear Krenar Ibrahimi : Perhaps I did not completely understand your question, but here are my thoughts on two different cases.

1. You wish to publish your own review because the paper you reviewed was published with errors and mistakes neglecting your review. I recommend to do this in the form of a discussion paper, for which you have to find a suitable journal.

2. You wish to publish a review written by an unknown reviewer of your own papers. I do not recommend to do so. In Germany and in many other countries the rights of authors are strongly protected by law. No one has the right to publish any text of an author without his consent, whether it it has already been published or not.

Concerning your remark about questions in RG, "when many comments and replies may have quite or even no at all arguments (like "yes of course" or "following", etc.), are full or errors in English or computer style, and, furthermore, properly this kind of "researchers" receive many recommendations, which continue to be accepted by RG without any argument ...": I am afraid this a consequence of the fact that some universities look at RG Scores and make carriers depending on these scores, although this is complete nonsense. So, some RG members increase their scores by useless short replies. RG staff cannot review the millions of replies and their recommendations, each is given the same weight. There even seem to exist networks of RG members, possibly from the same university, who give each other recommendations.

Dear Wolfgang R. Dick.

Concerning your first comment which included two cases you thought, I fear you did not notice that I argued to have written a review on a submitted paper which has been rejected only because of my own review against six others which were favorable to it only because of the names of two renowned co-authors who added their name in a paper which they did even never read, as I proved it by the error of writing the name of one of them at the header of each page, the innumerable number of errors of any kind, as the English writing and style, false or fictive references of these co-authors, and many other multiple errors which can never be present in that submitted paper if these co-authors had read the paper at least one time before submission, otherwise they should accept their unjustifiable reputation and titles earned during their respective careers. So, again, the submitted paper I have reviewed has been rejected, i.e., it has neither been accepted for presentation in the conference nor for publication into the journal related to the said conference.

It is properly this paper review that I would want to publish as the longest review ever made at this conference, and this is my conviction due to the simple facts I dispose like its number of words as compared to any other review I has been made for my submitted papers or made by the other reviewers of the papers I have also reviewed, more concretely, it is >8.5 times the number of the six other reviews taken together, having much more words than the submitted paper itself if one omits the references from the latter. This fact was accepted in some way by some member of the organizing committee, who addressed these words to me: "I ... agree that your reviews do appear to provide more information to the author than other reviews we receive." As one may notice, there is about my reviews. I claim also that one of these reviews (the one related to my question of this RG thread) is also one of the best and most professional reviews this conference has ever seen, although there are no comments at all about this by the conference organizers and the editor of the submitted paper. Although I repeatedly have asked them to make some comments on the quality and quantity of my review work, without receiving any answer, in my deep conviction, they made everything to not answering as it should be to my other questions related in essence to when, namely, in what conditions (that is, for which number and kind of errors or misconceptions or misapplications or lack of this and that or related to the ill or not or over use of references, etc.) may be enough that a paper can be rejected. It is properly this lack of answers which has been the impetus for me to find all the possible errors that can be found at that paper and writing a review against which no one can say nothing at all but immediate rejection. Meanwhile, the other six reviews were only some boot lickers influenced properly by the presence of those two renowned names as co-authors of the paper.

I did not asked for permission of publication of this review to the conference organizers, but when I asked them to provide me the email of only one of the other reviewers, as I liked to to exchange some ideas with them after having noted some interesting things, however, in their comments, the answer by the managing editor in person was a firm no to disclose any coordinates of the said reviewer.

Asking to publish this review is for me not only a question of pride and personal professional achievement, but also for retaining the attention of everyone in the field to see that if, in any case, this paper may have seen the light of publication somewhere somewhen, it would be for the shame of its author and co-author(s) if, and only if, this paper has included most or all of the remarks I made and they have never made an effort to attach my name as a co-author of that paper, having contributed to its publication with much more words and reasons and clear arguments and logical discussion than all of them taken together. And, the most important reason is that I make of this paper review an example of how a paper can (not) be written, notifying all the classical errors and miswriting in it to be avoid in future research. There is so much to write also about some quality rules in writing a research paper, etc., etc., so that to fill an entire book.

Concerning your second comment, especially on the impossibility you see for "RG staff [to] review the millions of replies and their recommendations", I may simply add that it will be in the honor of RG and its staff to add some keys which simply impede all of the irresponsible researchers and practices to be produced. How?

A very simple idea would be that of not permitting any recommendation to be made without furnishing at least a certain number, say three, of reasons, which must obligatorily sourced at the opinion of a given researcher which merits to be recommended. I am sure that if not annulate, this new practice will certainly curb and soften the tendency of the same people to do as they actually do.

Is it not the research and science based on the truth? If at least everyone and at most any team of people try to find or generate ideas, one may be sure that they will still find some better ones at every moment improving the bad practices or those practices, and merits that are unfortunately based on lies, partisanship, and the kind of illnesses which are nothing less than the proper cancer of science.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to continue participating in this discussion. Perhaps others can contribute something.