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

Read more

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     ---might be outdated by publishing date (“well, no one uses this OS anymore, but when they did…”).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

Read more