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 peer reviewed by virtue of being source material of peer reviewed work. Meaning, if you wrote something that was later used in books and journals, then your work was probably already peer reviewed by those authors of books and journals. This process would simply verfiy and validate your work as cited.
* Peer reviewers would be practitioners within high-tech organizations or academia
* Work that has been RAPID PEER REVIEWed could still be eligible for journal publishing (but not the other way around)
Here are the benefits to you :
* Your research is recognized .
* Your work get more exposure , not in the manner of becoming famous but instead your research is shared more widely.
* Your name gets credited for your work.
* The community has another source (a validated source!) for research to build upon and learn.
* Your ability to cite sources that have been peer reviewed increase, rather than citing someone's blog post (that is, if you cite for a book, journal, or legal matter that you are writing).
Your input matters
At this point, there are a few drivers pushing this idea along. I officially Knight Jessica as the cat herder. Eventually (sooner than later), after some details are fleshed out, it would be good to see a few more interested parties join in to help with the physical labor.
At any point, we encourage comments, suggestions, and recommendations at any time. Currently, we have some ideas on the who will peer review, where the peer reviewed documents will be stored, and how the process will tentatively work. After we whittle down a little more, I’ll write up the details of where it stands, which could look really good or need a total revamp…that’s where input will be helpful.
Who does RAPID PEER REVIEW affect?
- If you have never published work in a journal, or written a book, but you have done some research or work that should be shared in the community, this is for you.
- If you have written things in the past that has been cited in multiple places as a source, then this is for you.
- If your research was rejected by a journal or publisher, but you feel it is important to share, then this is for you.
One of the main points that the Rapid Peer Review process focuses on is that of avoiding the academia model at all costs. This is not to replace traditional publishing or scientific journals, or to compete with anyone who wants their research in a journal or book. This is for those who would not have published in a journal or book, or maybe is not ready to publish in a journal or book. This is for everyone who has written or will write some cool DFIR stuff that should be shared as a Peer Reviewed work (of art and science…).
What do you not get for having your work in the Rapid Peer Review process?
- You won't get a certificate.
- You won't get more initials after your name.
- You won't get a coin.
The intention is simply to be a bridge between a blog post and a scientific journal.
Brett's Peer Review Model