Non-peer reviewed pubs?

[sadpremed01]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello, per the title, I've had research published in this proceedings journal which is NOT peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.29.3.037001
I have a DOI on ResearchGate for this paper but do not know if this would be meaningful or valuable to put on my AMCAS under publications. I don't have any other pubs unfortunately.
The research discussed in the proceedings manuscript is part of larger work which will later be submitted to a large peer-reviewed journal.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

*Edit: for clarification, the article I linked is not mine. My work was just published in the same database (SPIE).

 

[Goro]

It IS peer reviewed.
It is indexed in major databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed

 

[sadpremed01]

It IS peer reviewed.
It is indexed in major databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed

Thanks Goro. I had an extension and sent in my manuscript after the proceedings volume was sent to indexers... so my understanding is I'll be published in SPIE Digital Library but not indexed unless the indexers "glean material from the SDL on their own". For the purpose of AMCAS should this still go under Publications?
I'm still learning the ropes on academia and indexing so I appreciate your insight.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Hello, per the title, I've had research published in this proceedings journal which is NOT peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.29.3.037001

But the journal says:

Journal of Biomedical Optics (JBO) is a Gold Open Access journal that publishes peer-reviewed papers on the use of novel optical systems and techniques for improved health care and biomedical research.

I see Snopes hasn't contradicted this. Who has been telling you mistruths?

 

[sadpremed01]

But the journal says:

Journal of Biomedical Optics (JBO) is a Gold Open Access journal that publishes peer-reviewed papers on the use of novel optical systems and techniques for improved health care and biomedical research.

I see Snopes hasn't contradicted this. Who has been telling you mistruths?

Haha maybe I'm misunderstanding what I've been told... to clarify, the DOI I cited is not my paper. Mine is not published elsewhere like in JBO, it's like this one https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3091054. Would this change your thoughts?

 

[Goro]

Haha maybe I'm misunderstanding what I've been told... to clarify, the DOI I cited is not my paper. Mine is not published elsewhere like in JBO, it's like this one https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3091054. Would this change your thoughts?

Its a conference presentation, not a pub. Still valid

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Interesting. The first DOI was noted as a publication. The second was Presentation.+ Paper. I would need to know what the Call for Papers says. (It's great that publishers are moving forward with more visibility for publications... but that can be an optics thing.)

It is a conference presentation. Your data will be part of a larger peer-reviewed publication which will matter more (to the PIs).

This is the problem with always presenting proxies rather than authentic information. Also, we would react the same way most biomedical research adcoms would. If you have to explain it to adcoms, your assertion is probably wrong. This may also be an indication of whether you "must" put it on your publications listing for W/A.