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.

The Least of These: American Evangelical Parachurch Missions to the Poor, 1947-2005

This dissertation narrates the historical development of American evangelical missions to the poor from 1947-2005 and analyzes the discourse of its main parachurch proponents, especially World Vision, Compassion International, Food for the Hungry, Samaritan's urse, Sojourners, Evangelicals for Social Action, and the Christian Community Development Association. Although recent scholarship on evangelicalism has been prolific, much of the historical work has focused on earlier periods. Sociological and political scientific scholarship on the postwar period has been attracted mostly to controversies surrounding the Religious Right, leaving evangelicalism's resurgent concern for the poor relatively understudied. This dissertation addresses these lacunae. The study consists of three chronological parts, each marked by a distinctive model of mission to the poor. First, the 1950s were characterized by compassionate charity for individual emergencies, a model that cohered neatly with evangelicalism's individualism and emotionalism. This model should be regarded as the quintessential, bedrock evangelical theory of mission to the poor. It remained strong throughout the entire postwar period. Second, in the 1970s, a strong countercurrent emerged that advocated for penitent protest against structural injustice and underdevelopment. In contrast to the first model, it was distinguished by going against the grain of many aspects of evangelical culture, especially its reflexive patriotism and individualism. Third, in the 1990s, an important movement towards developing potential through hopeful holism gained prominence. Its advocates were confident that their integration of biblical principles with insights from contemporary economic development praxis would contribute to drastic, widespread reductions in poverty. This model signaled a new optimism in evangelicalism's engagement with the broader world. The increasing prominence of missions to the poor within American evangelicalism led to dramatic changes within the movement's worldview: by 2005, evangelicals were mostly unified in their expressed concern for the physical and social needs of the poor, a position that radically reversed their immediate postwar worldview of near-exclusive focus on the spiritual needs of individuals. Nevertheless, missions to the poor also paralleled, reinforced, and hastened the increasing fragmentation of evangelicalism's identity, as each missional model advocated for highly variant approaches to poverty amelioration that were undergirded by diverse sociological, political, and theological assumptions.

Load Profiling for Efficient Route Selection in Multi-Class Networks

High-speed networks, such as ATM networks, are expected to support diverse Quality of Service (QoS) constraints, including real-time QoS guarantees. Real-time QoS is required by many applications such as those that involve voice and video communication. To support such services, routing algorithms that allow applications to reserve the needed bandwidth over a Virtual Circuit (VC) have been proposed. Commonly, these bandwidth-reservation algorithms assign VCs to routes using the least-loaded concept, and thus result in balancing the load over the set of all candidate routes. In this paper, we show that for such reservation-based protocols|which allow for the exclusive use of a preset fraction of a resource's bandwidth for an extended period of time-load balancing is not desirable as it results in resource fragmentation, which adversely affects the likelihood of accepting new reservations. In particular, we show that load-balancing VC routing algorithms are not appropriate when the main objective of the routing protocol is to increase the probability of finding routes that satisfy incoming VC requests, as opposed to equalizing the bandwidth utilization along the various routes. We present an on-line VC routing scheme that is based on the concept of "load profiling", which allows a distribution of "available" bandwidth across a set of candidate routes to match the characteristics of incoming VC QoS requests. We show the effectiveness of our load-profiling approach when compared to traditional load-balancing and load-packing VC routing schemes.