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.

Paediatric malaria case-management with artemether-lumefantrine in Zambia: a repeat cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND:Zambia was the first African country to change national antimalarial treatment policy to artemisinin-based combination therapy - artemether-lumefantrine. An evaluation during the early implementation phase revealed low readiness of health facilities and health workers to deliver artemether-lumefantrine, and worryingly suboptimal treatment practices. Improvements in the case-management of uncomplicated malaria two years after the initial evaluation and three years after the change of policy in Zambia are reported.METHODS:Data collected during the health facility surveys undertaken in 2004 and 2006 at all outpatient departments of government and mission facilities in four Zambian districts were analysed. The surveys were cross-sectional, using a range of quality of care assessment methods. The main outcome measures were changes in health facility and health worker readiness to deliver artemether-lumefantrine, and changes in case-management practices for children below five years of age presenting with uncomplicated malaria as defined by national guidelines.RESULTS:In 2004, 94 health facilities, 103 health workers and 944 consultations for children with uncomplicated malaria were evaluated. In 2006, 104 facilities, 135 health workers and 1125 consultations were evaluated using the same criteria of selection. Health facility and health worker readiness improved from 2004 to 2006: availability of artemether-lumefantrine from 51% (48/94) to 60% (62/104), presence of artemether-lumefantrine dosage wall charts from 20% (19/94) to 75% (78/104), possession of guidelines from 58% (60/103) to 92% (124/135), and provision of in-service training from 25% (26/103) to 41% (55/135). The proportions of children with uncomplicated malaria treated with artemether-lumefantrine also increased from 2004 to 2006: from 1% (6/527) to 27% (149/552) in children weighing 5 to 9 kg, and from 11% (42/394) to 42% (231/547) in children weighing 10 kg or more. In both weight groups and both years, 22% (441/2020) of children with uncomplicated malaria were not prescribed any antimalarial drug.CONCLUSION:Although significant improvements in malaria case-management have occurred over two years in Zambia, the quality of treatment provided at the point of care is not yet optimal. Strengthening weak health systems and improving the delivery of effective interventions should remain high priority in all countries implementing new treatment policies for malaria.

Foundational Theory for Understanding Policy Routing Dynamics

In this paper we introduce a theory of policy routing dynamics based on fundamental axioms of routing update mechanisms. We develop a dynamic policy routing model (DPR) that extends the static formalism of the stable paths problem (introduced by Griffin et al.) with discrete synchronous time. DPR captures the propagation of path changes in any dynamic network irrespective of its time-varying topology. We introduce several novel structures such as causation chains, dispute fences and policy digraphs that model different aspects of routing dynamics and provide insight into how these dynamics manifest in a network. We exercise the practicality of the theoretical foundation provided by DPR with two fundamental problems: routing dynamics minimization and policy conflict detection. The dynamics minimization problem utilizes policy digraphs, that capture the dependencies in routing policies irrespective of underlying topology dynamics, to solve a graph optimization problem. This optimization problem explicitly minimizes the number of routing update messages in a dynamic network by optimally changing the path preferences of a minimal subset of nodes. The conflict detection problem, on the other hand, utilizes a theoretical result of DPR where the root cause of a causation cycle (i.e., cycle of routing update messages) can be precisely inferred as either a transient route flap or a dispute wheel (i.e., policy conflict). Using this result we develop SafetyPulse, a token-based distributed algorithm to detect policy conflicts in a dynamic network. SafetyPulse is privacy preserving, computationally efficient, and provably correct.

Principles of Safe Policy Routing Dynamics

We introduce the Dynamic Policy Routing (DPR) model that captures the propagation of route updates under arbitrary changes in topology or path preferences. DPR introduces the notion of causation chains where the route flap at one node causes a flap at the next node along the chain. Using DPR, we model the Gao-Rexford (economic) guidelines that guarantee the safety (i.e., convergence) of policy routing. We establish three principles of safe policy routing dynamics. The non-interference principle provides insight into which ASes can directly induce route changes in one another. The single cycle principle and the multi-tiered cycle principle provide insight into how cycles of routing updates can manifest in any network. We develop INTERFERENCEBEAT, a distributed algorithm that propagates a small token along causation chains to check adherence to these principles. To enhance the diagnosis power of INTERFERENCEBEAT, we model four violations of the Gao-Rexford guidelines (e.g., transiting between peers) and characterize the resulting dynamics.

Preserving Bandwidth Using A Lazy Packet Discard Policy in ATM Networks

A number of recent studies have pointed out that TCP's performance over ATM networks tends to suffer, especially under congestion and switch buffer limitations. Switch-level enhancements and link-level flow control have been proposed to improve TCP's performance in ATM networks. Selective Cell Discard (SCD) and Early Packet Discard (EPD) ensure that partial packets are discarded from the network "as early as possible", thus reducing wasted bandwidth. While such techniques improve the achievable throughput, their effectiveness tends to degrade in multi-hop networks. In this paper, we introduce Lazy Packet Discard (LPD), an AAL-level enhancement that improves effective throughput, reduces response time, and minimizes wasted bandwidth for TCP/IP over ATM. In contrast to the SCD and EPD policies, LPD delays as much as possible the removal from the network of cells belonging to a partially communicated packet. We outline the implementation of LPD and show the performance advantage of TCP/LPD, compared to plain TCP and TCP/EPD through analysis and simulations.

An Adaptive Policy Management Approach to BGP Convergence

The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the current inter-domain routing protocol used to exchange reachability information between Autonomous Systems (ASes) in the Internet. BGP supports policy-based routing which allows each AS to independently adopt a set of local policies that specify which routes it accepts and advertises from/to other networks, as well as which route it prefers when more than one route becomes available. However, independently chosen local policies may cause global conflicts, which result in protocol divergence. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm, called Adaptive Policy Management Scheme (APMS), to resolve policy conflicts in a distributed manner. Akin to distributed feedback control systems, each AS independently classifies the state of the network as either conflict-free or potentially-conflicting by observing its local history only (namely, route flaps). Based on the degree of measured conflicts (policy conflict-avoidance vs. -control mode), each AS dynamically adjusts its own path preferences—increasing its preference for observably stable paths over flapping paths. APMS also includes a mechanism to distinguish route flaps due to topology changes, so as not to confuse them with those due to policy conflicts. A correctness and convergence analysis of APMS based on the substability property of chosen paths is presented. Implementation in the SSF network simulator is performed, and simulation results for different performance metrics are presented. The metrics capture the dynamic performance (in terms of instantaneous throughput, delay, routing load, etc.) of APMS and other competing solutions, thus exposing the often neglected aspects of performance.