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

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