The DSpace Course - Item Submission Workflows

This module will introduce the item submission workflows available in DSpace. Workflows allow submissions to be checked before entering the repository. Submissions may be checked for accuracy, in order to improve the metadata, or simply to decide if they are OK to be archived. The module will show the three workflow steps available in DSpace, along with details about adding, changing and removing them from the submission process of collections.

DSpace Manual: Software version 1.5

DSpace is an open source software platform that enables organizations to: - Capture and describe digital material using a submission workflow module, or a variety of programmatic ingest options - Distribute an organization's digital assets over the web through a search and retrieval system - Preserve digital assets over the long term This system documentation includes a functional overview of the system, which is a good introduction to the capabilities of the system, and should be readable by nontechnical personnel. Everyone should read this section first because it introduces some terminology used throughout the rest of the documentation. For people actually running a DSpace service, there is an installation guide, and sections on configuration and the directory structure. Note that as of DSpace 1.2, the administration user interface guide is now on-line help available from within the DSpace system. Finally, for those interested in the details of how DSpace works, and those potentially interested in modifying the code for their own purposes, there is a detailed architecture and design section.

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.

An Admission Control Paradigm for Real-time Databases

We propose and evaluate an admission control paradigm for RTDBS, in which a transaction is submitted to the system as a pair of processes: a primary task, and a recovery block. The execution requirements of the primary task are not known a priori, whereas those of the recovery block are known a priori. Upon the submission of a transaction, an Admission Control Mechanism is employed to decide whether to admit or reject that transaction. Once admitted, a transaction is guaranteed to finish executing before its deadline. A transaction is considered to have finished executing if exactly one of two things occur: Either its primary task is completed (successful commitment), or its recovery block is completed (safe termination). Committed transactions bring a profit to the system, whereas a terminated transaction brings no profit. The goal of the admission control and scheduling protocols (e.g., concurrency control, I/O scheduling, memory management) employed in the system is to maximize system profit. We describe a number of admission control strategies and contrast (through simulations) their relative performance.

Concurrency Admission Control Management in ACCORD

We propose and evaluate admission control mechanisms for ACCORD, an Admission Control and Capacity Overload management Real-time Database framework-an architecture and a transaction model-for hard deadline RTDB systems. The system architecture consists of admission control and scheduling components which provide early notification of failure to submitted transactions that are deemed not valuable or incapable of completing on time. In particular, our Concurrency Admission Control Manager (CACM) ensures that transactions which are admitted do not overburden the system by requiring a level of concurrency that is not sustainable. The transaction model consists of two components: a primary task and a compensating task. The execution requirements of the primary task are not known a priori, whereas those of the compensating task are known a priori. Upon the submission of a transaction, the Admission Control Mechanisms are employed to decide whether to admit or reject that transaction. Once admitted, a transaction is guaranteed to finish executing before its deadline. A transaction is considered to have finished executing if exactly one of two things occur: Either its primary task is completed (successful commitment), or its compensating task is completed (safe termination). Committed transactions bring a profit to the system, whereas a terminated transaction brings no profit. The goal of the admission control and scheduling protocols (e.g., concurrency control, I/O scheduling, memory management) employed in the system is to maximize system profit. In that respect, we describe a number of concurrency admission control strategies and contrast (through simulations) their relative performance.