High-mobility pentacene thin-film transistors with copolymer-gate dielectric

Pentacene thin-film transistors have been obtained using polymethyl-methacrylate-co-glyciclyl-methacrylate (PNIMA-GMA) as the gate dielectric. The optimum active layer thickness in thin-film transistors (OTFTs) was investigated. The present devices show a wide operation voltage range. The on/off current ratio is as high as 10(5). In linear region (V-DS = -2V), the field-effect mobility of device increases with the increase in gate field at low-voltage region (V-G < - 20 V), and a mobility of 0.33 cm(2)/Vs can be obtained when V-G > 20 V. In saturation region, the mobility increases linearly with the gate field, and a high mobility of 1.14 cm(2)/Vs can be obtained at V-G = -95V. The influence of voltage on mobility of device was investigated.

Sequence-Seeking and Counter Streams: A Model for Information Processing in the Cortex

This paper presents a model for the general flow in the neocortex. The basic process, called "sequence-seeking," is a search for a sequence of mappings or transformations, linking source and target representations. The search is bi-directional, "bottom-up" as well as "top-down," and it explores in parallel a large numbe rof alternative sequences. This operation is implemented in a structure termed "counter streams," in which multiple sequences are explored along two separate, complementary pathways which seeking to meet. The first part of the paper discusses the general sequence-seeking scheme and a number of related processes, such as the learning of successful sequences, context effects, and the use of "express lines" and partial matches. The second part discusses biological implications of the model in terms of connections within and between cortical areas. The model is compared with existing data, and a number of new predictions are proposed.

Novel information sharing syntax for data sharing between police and community partners, using role-based security.

The exchange of information between the police and community partners forms a central aspect of effective community service provision. In the context of policing, a robust and timely communications mechanism is required between police agencies and community partner domains, including: Primary healthcare (such as a Family Physician or a General Practitioner); Secondary healthcare (such as hospitals); Social Services; Education; and Fire and Rescue services. Investigations into high-profile cases such as the Victoria Climbié murder in 2000, the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, and, more recently, the death of baby Peter Connelly through child abuse in 2007, highlight the requirement for a robust information-sharing framework. This paper presents a novel syntax that supports information-sharing requests, within strict data-sharing policy definitions. Such requests may form the basis for any information-sharing agreement that can exist between the police and their community partners. It defines a role-based architecture, with partner domains, with a syntax for the effective and efficient information sharing, using SPoC (Single Point-of-Contact) agents to control in-formation exchange. The application of policy definitions using rules within these SPoCs is inspired by network firewall rules and thus define information exchange permissions. These rules can be imple-mented by software filtering agents that act as information gateways between partner domains. Roles are exposed from each domain to give the rights to exchange information as defined within the policy definition. This work involves collaboration with the Scottish Police, as part of the Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR), and aims to improve the safety of individuals by reducing risks to the community using enhanced information-sharing mechanisms.

Library co-operation and ICT in the UK: an overview

Tedd, L.A. (2003). Library co-operation and ICT in the UK: an overview. Information Services and Use, 23(4), 199-210

Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. Part 1: Quantitative

Cumbers, B., Urquhart, C. & Durbin, J. (2006). Evaluation of the KA24 (Knowledge Access 24) service for health and social care staff in London and the South-East of England. Part 1: Quantitative. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23(2), 133-139 Sponsorship: KA24 - NHS Trusts, London

Evaluating SWICE-R (South West Information for Clinical Effectiveness - Rural). Final report for South West Workforce Development Confederations (Knowledge Resources Development Unit)

Yeoman, A., Durbin, J. & Urquhart, C. (2004). Evaluating SWICE-R (South West Information for Clinical Effectiveness - Rural). Final report for South West Workforce Development Confederations, (Knowledge Resources Development Unit). Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: South West WDCs (NHS)

Qualitative evaluation of KA24 (Knowledge Access 24)

Durbin, J. & Urquhart, C. (2003). Qualitative evaluation of KA24 (Knowledge Access 24). Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: Knowledge Access 24 (NHS)

Using participant or non-participant observation to explain information behaviour

Cooper, J., Lewis, R. & Urquhart, C. (2004). Using participant or non-participant observation to explain information behaviour. Information Research, 9(4). Retrieved August 3, 2006 from http://informationr.net/ir/9-4/paper184.html Sponsorship: AHRC (Cooper).

Evaluation of the Specialist Libraries/Communities of Practice. Report for National Library for Health

Cooper, J., Spink, S., Thomas, R. & Urquhart, C. (2005). Evaluation of the Specialist Libraries/Communities of Practice. Report for National Library for Health. Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: National Library for Health (NLH)

JUSTEIS: JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services Final report 2003/2004 Cycle Five

Urquhart, C., Spink, S., Thomas, R., Yeoman, A., Durbin, J., Turner, J., Fenton, R. & Armstrong, C. (2004). JUSTEIS: JISC Usage Surveys: Trends in Electronic Information Services Final report 2003/2004 Cycle Five. Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: JISC

A study of information literacy initiatives between secondary schools and universities in the UK

Lonsdale, R. E. & Armstrong, C. (2006). A study of information literacy initiatives between secondary schools and universities in the UK. In A.B. Martins, A.P. Falcao, E. Conde, I. Andrade, M.B. Nunes, M.J. Vitorino (Eds.), Proceedings of 35th Annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship, Lisboa (Portugal). The Multiple Faces of Literacy: Reading, Knowing, Doing: Selected papers from the 35th Annual Conference of IASL [CD-ROM: PDF version] Lisbon, Portugal 2006 Sponsorship: JISC

Understanding student information behavior in relation to electronic information services: lessons from longitudinal monitoring and evaluation Part 2

Urquhart, C. & Rowley, J. (2007). Understanding student information behavior in relation to electronic information services: lessons from longitudinal monitoring and evaluation Part 2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1188-1197. Sponsorship: JISC

Rural information needs. Final report for Mid Wales Library and Information Partnership

Thomas, R., Crossan, S., Urquhart, C. & Hines, B. (2008). Rural information needs. Final report for Mid Wales Library and Information Partnership. Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University Sponsorship: Mid Wales Library and Information Partnership

'Cloak Without Dagger': How the Information Research Department Fought Britain's Cold War in the Middle East, 1948-1956

Vaughn, James, ''Cloak Without Dagger': How the Information Research Department Fought Britain's Cold War in the Middle East, 1948-1956', Cold War History (2004) 4(3) pp.56-84 RAE2008

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.