Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Treatment of HIV/AIDS at South Africa's Largest Employers: Myth and Reality

Background: In the past three years, many large employers in South Africa have announced publicly their intention of making antiretroviral treatment (ART) available to employees. Reports of the scope and success of these programs have been mostly anecdotal. This study surveyed the largest private sector employers in South Africa to determine the proportion of employees with access to ART through employer-sponsored HIV/AIDS treatment programs. Methods: All 64 private sector and parastatal employers in South Africa with more than 6,000 employees were identified and contacted. Those that agreed to participate were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire. Results: 52 companies agreed to participate. Among these companies, 63% of employees had access to employer-sponsored care and treatment for HIV/AIDS. Access varied widely by sector, however. Approximately 27% of suspected HIV-positive employees were enrolled in HIV/AIDS disease management programs, or 4.4% of the workforce overall. Fewer than 4,000 employees in the entire sample were receiving antiretroviral therapy. In-house (employer) disease management programs and independent disease management programs achieved higher uptake of services than did medical aid schemes. Conclusions: Publicity by large employers about their treatment programs should be interpreted cautiously. While there is a high level of access to treatment, uptake of services is low and only a small fraction of employees medically eligible for antiretroviral therapy are receiving it.

Neural Control of Interlimb Coordination and Gait Timing in Bipeds and Quadrupeds

1) A large body of behavioral data conceming animal and human gaits and gait transitions is simulated as emergent properties of a central pattern generator (CPG) model. The CPG model incorporates neurons obeying Hodgkin-Huxley type dynamics that interact via an on-center off-surround anatomy whose excitatory signals operate on a faster time scale than their inhibitory signals. A descending cornmand or arousal signal called a GO signal activates the gaits and controL their transitions. The GO signal and the CPG model are compared with neural data from globus pallidus and spinal cord, among other brain structures. 2) Data from human bimanual finger coordination tasks are simulated in which anti-phase oscillations at low frequencies spontaneously switch to in-phase oscillations at high frequencies, in-phase oscillations can be performed both at low and high frequencies, phase fluctuations occur at the anti-phase in-phase transition, and a "seagull effect" of larger errors occurs at intermediate phases. When driven by environmental patterns with intermediate phase relationships, the model's output exhibits a tendency to slip toward purely in-phase and anti-phase relationships as observed in humans subjects. 3) Quadruped vertebrate gaits, including the amble, the walk, all three pairwise gaits (trot, pace, and gallop) and the pronk are simulated. Rapid gait transitions are simulated in the order--walk, trot, pace, and gallop--that occurs in the cat, along with the observed increase in oscillation frequency. 4) Precise control of quadruped gait switching is achieved in the model by using GO-dependent modulation of the model's inhibitory interactions. This generates a different functional connectivity in a single CPG at different arousal levels. Such task-specific modulation of functional connectivity in neural pattern generators has been experimentally reported in invertebrates. Phase-dependent modulation of reflex gain has been observed in cats. A role for state-dependent modulation is herein predicted to occur in vertebrates for precise control of phase transitions from one gait to another. 5) The primary human gaits (the walk and the run) and elephant gaits (the amble and the walk) are sirnulated. Although these two gaits are qualitatively different, they both have the same limb order and may exhibit oscillation frequencies that overlap. The CPG model simulates the walk and the run by generating oscillations which exhibit the same phase relationships. but qualitatively different waveform shapes, at different GO signal levels. The fraction of each cycle that activity is above threshold quantitatively distinguishes the two gaits, much as the duty cycles of the feet are longer in the walk than in the run. 6) A key model properly concerns the ability of a single model CPG, that obeys a fixed set of opponent processing equations to generate both in-phase and anti-phase oscillations at different arousal levels. Phase transitions from either in-phase to anti-phase oscillations, or from anti-phase to in-phase oscillations, can occur in different parameter ranges, as the GO signal increases.