I cannot overstate the benefit that everyone, and I mean everyone, receives with DFIR Review. That includes YOU, whether you submit research to DFIR Review, or if you read research published on DFIR Review, or if you need to cite research on DFIR Review.

Refresher on DFIR Review

This is a merge of the traditional “academic peer review system” and “blogging your research ”.  In short, we have taken the benefits of academic peer review and the benefits of DFIR blogging, to create a simple and fast way to have your work peer reviewed.

Academic peer review is important and should be considered for most research as it is peer reviewed by academia. But it takes a long time and is typically used for longer research projects.

DFIR blogging is also important and should be considered for most research as it is quick to publish and instantly available for others

The new-peer-review-no-name-yet task force is chipping away at the proposal of a new (but extremely different) peer review process for DFIR research, spearheaded by Jessica Hyde .

I’ve gotten a few private messages that teeter on the edge of complaints about even talking about creating a new process of peer review, but each complaint has been relieved of worry after clarifying what we are working to come up with.

Here are some of the things I want to clarify:

1. We have no name for the new peer review process but use practically anything right now (DFIR Review. Rapid Review. Etc..). The name is the least important thing in the process to create a process, imho.
2. This new peer review process has absolutely nothing to do with academic publishing . It doesn’t compete with it, attempt to replace it, or attempt to supplement it. Nada. No relation at all.
3. This new

What started as a question on twitter, turned into a poll and twitter discussion, has begun to evolve into something interesting: The “ Rapid Peer Review ”.

I’ve had quite a few DMs and emails with several people over the past week on peer reviews in the DFIR world to discuss this topic.

In short, academic reviews take too long to publish and are of limited practical value for practitioners. We need a better system.

During these discussions, Jessica Hyde coined the “RAPID PEER REVIEW” name, so I’m sticking with that.

Since this idea is evolving, here are some of the ideas being discussed, all subject to change:

*  Process should take 30 days or less to be considered Peer-reviewed or rejected

*  Previously peer-reviewed work (as seen in a published journal) would be ineligible

*  Previously written work that has been cited or referenced may be judged as already

Here is a brief list of reasons of why I think DFIRrs blog their research rather than formally publish it through a peer review process.

--Blogging is:

     ---faster (minutes to type up and post),

     ---easier (click “post”),

     ---written for the practitioner (“this is how you do it”),

     ---putting out perishable information before it spoils (“applies to the current OS today”).

--Peer review is:

     ---slower (months or years),

     ---more difficult process (lots of steps and hurdles),

     ---written academically (“for the love of all that is good and holy, get to the point!”),

     ---might be outdated by publishing date (“well, no one uses this OS anymore, but when they did…”).

Neither method results in direct a financial gain for the work done.  The time spent will not equal money received, if any money received.  No fame either…

I’m not going to get into the

Following up on a forensic artifact project database idea , the end result is that the idea is dead before it started.

The twitter poll (one of the most unscientific, but easiest polls to do) didn’t show a lot of promise. Also, there were a LOT of DMs and email discussions.  Thanks to everyone giving me their thoughts. 

Would a #DFIR forensic artifact project management database be of interest?

Try it out and vote. https://t.co/fAqrYfCAaA
user: demo password: password

— DFIR Training (@DFIRTraining) June 11, 2018

Here are the main points that I received, summarized in three statements:

-Publishing research must be in academia (journals)

-Publishing research must be in books (publishers)

-We don’t need project management in research

On top of these points, the fear of lack of contributors holds me back.  According to the Twitter poll, less than