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.

Measuring the Behavior of a World-Wide Web Server

Server performance has become a crucial issue for improving the overall performance of the World-Wide Web. This paper describes Webmonitor, a tool for evaluating and understanding server performance, and presents new results for a realistic workload. Webmonitor measures activity and resource consumption, both within the kernel and in HTTP processes running in user space. Webmonitor is implemented using an efficient combination of sampling and event-driven techniques that exhibit low overhead. Our initial implementation is for the Apache World-Wide Web server running on the Linux operating system. We demonstrate the utility of Webmonitor by measuring and understanding the performance of a Pentium-based PC acting as a dedicated WWW server. Our workload uses a file size distribution with a heavy tail. This captures the fact that Web servers must concurrently handle some requests for large audio and video files, and a large number of requests for small documents, containing text or images. Our results show that in a Web server saturated by client requests, over 90% of the time spent handling HTTP requests is spent in the kernel. Furthermore, keeping TCP connections open, as required by TCP, causes a factor of 2-9 increase in the elapsed time required to service an HTTP request. Data gathered from Webmonitor provide insight into the causes of this performance penalty. Specifically, we observe a significant increase in resource consumption along three dimensions: the number of HTTP processes running at the same time, CPU utilization, and memory utilization. These results emphasize the important role of operating system and network protocol implementation in determining Web server performance.

On the Interaction Between an Operating System and Web Server

This paper examines how and why web server performance changes as the workload at the server varies. We measure the performance of a PC acting as a standalone web server, running Apache on top of Linux. We use two important tools to understand what aspects of software architecture and implementation determine performance at the server. The first is a tool that we developed, called WebMonitor, which measures activity and resource consumption, both in the operating system and in the web server. The second is the kernel profiling facility distributed as part of Linux. We vary the workload at the server along two important dimensions: the number of clients concurrently accessing the server, and the size of the documents stored on the server. Our results quantify and show how more clients and larger files stress the web server and operating system in different and surprising ways. Our results also show the importance of fixed costs (i.e., opening and closing TCP connections, and updating the server log) in determining web server performance.

Trade & Cap: A Customer-Managed, Market-Based System for Trading Bandwidth Allowances at a Shared Link

We propose Trade & Cap (T&C), an economics-inspired mechanism that incentivizes users to voluntarily coordinate their consumption of the bandwidth of a shared resource (e.g., a DSLAM link) so as to converge on what they perceive to be an equitable allocation, while ensuring efficient resource utilization. Under T&C, rather than acting as an arbiter, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) acts as an enforcer of what the community of rational users sharing the resource decides is a fair allocation of that resource. Our T&C mechanism proceeds in two phases. In the first, software agents acting on behalf of users engage in a strategic trading game in which each user agent selfishly chooses bandwidth slots to reserve in support of primary, interactive network usage activities. In the second phase, each user is allowed to acquire additional bandwidth slots in support of presumed open-ended need for fluid bandwidth, catering to secondary applications. The acquisition of this fluid bandwidth is subject to the remaining "buying power" of each user and by prevalent "market prices" – both of which are determined by the results of the trading phase and a desirable aggregate cap on link utilization. We present analytical results that establish the underpinnings of our T&C mechanism, including game-theoretic results pertaining to the trading phase, and pricing of fluid bandwidth allocation pertaining to the capping phase. Using real network traces, we present extensive experimental results that demonstrate the benefits of our scheme, which we also show to be practical by highlighting the salient features of an efficient implementation architecture.

QoS Controllers for the Internet

In this position paper, we review basic control strategies that machines acting as "traffic controllers" could deploy in order to improve the management of Internet services. Such traffic controllers are likely to spur the widespread emergence of advanced applications, which have (so far) been hindered by the inability of the networking infrastructure to deliver on the promise of Quality-of-Service (QoS).

How Spinal Neural Networks Reduce Discrepancies between Motor Intention and Motor Realization

This paper attempts a rational, step-by-step reconstruction of many aspects of the mammalian neural circuitry known to be involved in the spinal cord's regulation of opposing muscles acting on skeletal segments. Mathematical analyses and local circuit simulations based on neural membrane equations are used to clarify the behavioral function of five fundamental cell types, their complex connectivities, and their physiological actions. These cell types are: α-MNs, γ-MNs, IaINs, IbINs, and Renshaw cells. It is shown that many of the complexities of spinal circuitry are necessary to ensure near invariant realization of motor intentions when descending signals of two basic types independently vary over large ranges of magnitude and rate of change. Because these two types of signal afford independent control, or Factorization, of muscle LEngth and muscle TEnsion, our construction was named the FLETE model (Bullock and Grossberg, 1988b, 1989). The present paper significantly extends the range of experimental data encompassed by this evolving model.