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.

Scalability of Multicast Delivery for Non-sequential Streaming Access

To serve asynchronous requests using multicast, two categories of techniques, stream merging and periodic broadcasting have been proposed. For sequential streaming access where requests are uninterrupted from the beginning to the end of an object, these techniques are highly scalable: the required server bandwidth for stream merging grows logarithmically as request arrival rate, and the required server bandwidth for periodic broadcasting varies logarithmically as the inverse of start-up delay. However, sequential access is inappropriate to model partial requests and client interactivity observed in various streaming access workloads. This paper analytically and experimentally studies the scalability of multicast delivery under a non-sequential access model where requests start at random points in the object. We show that the required server bandwidth for any protocols providing immediate service grows at least as the square root of request arrival rate, and the required server bandwidth for any protocols providing delayed service grows linearly with the inverse of start-up delay. We also investigate the impact of limited client receiving bandwidth on scalability. We optimize practical protocols which provide immediate service to non-sequential requests. The protocols utilize limited client receiving bandwidth, and they are near-optimal in that the required server bandwidth is very close to its lower bound.

Changes in Web Client Access Patterns: Characteristics and Caching Implications

Understanding the nature of the workloads and system demands created by users of the World Wide Web is crucial to properly designing and provisioning Web services. Previous measurements of Web client workloads have been shown to exhibit a number of characteristic features; however, it is not clear how those features may be changing with time. In this study we compare two measurements of Web client workloads separated in time by three years, both captured from the same computing facility at Boston University. The older dataset, obtained in 1995, is well-known in the research literature and has been the basis for a wide variety of studies. The newer dataset was captured in 1998 and is comparable in size to the older dataset. The new dataset has the drawback that the collection of users measured may no longer be representative of general Web users; however using it has the advantage that many comparisons can be drawn more clearly than would be possible using a new, different source of measurement. Our results fall into two categories. First we compare the statistical and distributional properties of Web requests across the two datasets. This serves to reinforce and deepen our understanding of the characteristic statistical properties of Web client requests. We find that the kinds of distributions that best describe document sizes have not changed between 1995 and 1998, although specific values of the distributional parameters are different. Second, we explore the question of how the observed differences in the properties of Web client requests, particularly the popularity and temporal locality properties, affect the potential for Web file caching in the network. We find that for the computing facility represented by our traces between 1995 and 1998, (1) the benefits of using size-based caching policies have diminished; and (2) the potential for caching requested files in the network has declined.

Biologically Inspired Approaches to Automated Feature Extraction and Target Recognition

Ongoing research at Boston University has produced computational models of biological vision and learning that embody a growing corpus of scientific data and predictions. Vision models perform long-range grouping and figure/ground segmentation, and memory models create attentionally controlled recognition codes that intrinsically cornbine botton-up activation and top-down learned expectations. These two streams of research form the foundation of novel dynamically integrated systems for image understanding. Simulations using multispectral images illustrate road completion across occlusions in a cluttered scene and information fusion from incorrect labels that are simultaneously inconsistent and correct. The CNS Vision and Technology Labs (cns.bu.edulvisionlab and cns.bu.edu/techlab) are further integrating science and technology through analysis, testing, and development of cognitive and neural models for large-scale applications, complemented by software specification and code distribution.

Target Selection by Frontal Cortex During Coordinated Saccadic and Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement

Oculomotor tracking of moving objects is an important component of visually based cognition and planning. Such tracking is achieved by a combination of saccades and smooth pursuit eye movements. In particular, the saccadic and smooth pursuit systems interact to often choose the same target, and to maximize its visibility through time. How do multiple brain regions interact, including frontal cortical areas, to decide the choice of a target among several competing moving stimuli? How is target selection information that is created by a bias (e.g., electrical stimulation) transferred from one movement system to another? These saccade-pursuit interactions are clarified by a new computational neural model, which describes interactions among motion processing areas MT, MST, FPA, DLPN; saccade specification, selection, and planning areas LIP, FEF, SNr, SC; the saccadic generator in the brain stem; and the cerebellum. Model simulations explain a broad range of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological data. These results are in contrast with the simplest parallel model with no interactions between saccades and pursuit than common-target selection and recruitment of shared motoneurons. Actual tracking episodes in primates reveal multiple systematic deviations from predictions of the simplest parallel model, which are explained by the current model.

A Self-Organizing Neural Network for Learning a Body-Centered Invariant Representation of 3-D Target Position

This paper describes a self-organizing neural network that rapidly learns a body-centered representation of 3-D target positions. This representation remains invariant under head and eye movements, and is a key component of sensory-motor systems for producing motor equivalent reaches to targets (Bullock, Grossberg, and Guenther, 1993).

Neural Representations for Sensory-Motor Control, III: Learning a Body-Centered Representation of 3-D Target Position

A neural model is described of how the brain may autonomously learn a body-centered representation of 3-D target position by combining information about retinal target position, eye position, and head position in real time. Such a body-centered spatial representation enables accurate movement commands to the limbs to be generated despite changes in the spatial relationships between the eyes, head, body, and limbs through time. The model learns a vector representation--otherwise known as a parcellated distributed representation--of target vergence with respect to the two eyes, and of the horizontal and vertical spherical angles of the target with respect to a cyclopean egocenter. Such a vergence-spherical representation has been reported in the caudal midbrain and medulla of the frog, as well as in psychophysical movement studies in humans. A head-centered vergence-spherical representation of foveated target position can be generated by two stages of opponent processing that combine corollary discharges of outflow movement signals to the two eyes. Sums and differences of opponent signals define angular and vergence coordinates, respectively. The head-centered representation interacts with a binocular visual representation of non-foveated target position to learn a visuomotor representation of both foveated and non-foveated target position that is capable of commanding yoked eye movementes. This head-centered vector representation also interacts with representations of neck movement commands to learn a body-centered estimate of target position that is capable of commanding coordinated arm movements. Learning occurs during head movements made while gaze remains fixed on a foveated target. An initial estimate is stored and a VOR-mediated gating signal prevents the stored estimate from being reset during a gaze-maintaining head movement. As the head moves, new estimates arc compared with the stored estimate to compute difference vectors which act as error signals that drive the learning process, as well as control the on-line merging of multimodal information.

Neural Representations for Sensory-Motor Control I: Head-Centered 3-D Target Positions from Opponent Eye Commands

This article describes how corollary discharges from outflow eye movement commands can be transformed by two stages of opponent neural processing into a head-centered representation of 3-D target position. This representation implicitly defines a cyclopean coordinate system whose variables approximate the binocular vergence and spherical horizontal and vertical angles with respect to the observer's head. Various psychophysical data concerning binocular distance perception and reaching behavior are clarified by this representation. The representation provides a foundation for learning head-centered and body-centered invariant representations of both foveated and non-foveated 3-D target positions. It also enables a solution to be developed of the classical motor equivalence problem, whereby many different joint configurations of a redundant manipulator can all be used to realize a desired trajectory in 3-D space.