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

“Under the Blue Beret: A U.N. Peacekeeper in the Middle East (Book Review)” by Terry “Stoney” Burke

Review of Under the Blue Beret: A U.N. Peacekeeper in the Middle East by Terry “Stoney” Burk

Most Say Disaster Spending Does Not Require Offsetting Cuts: A Pew Research Center/Washington Post Survey

As Oklahoma recovers from severe damage caused by last week's tornado, a majority of Americans (59%) say federal spending in response to natural disasters is emergency aid that does not need to be offset by cuts to other programs, while 29% say such spending must be offset by cuts to other programs.While there are partisan differences in opinions about how disaster aid should be treated, majorities of Democrats (69%), independents (57%) and Republicans (52%) say that federal spending in response to natural disasters does not require offsetting spending cuts elsewhere.The national survey by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, conducted May 23-26 among 1,005 adults, finds broad support across demographic groups for the view that federal spending in response to natural disasters is emergency aid and does not need to be offset by cuts to other programs. Comparable majorities of those living in the Northeast (62%), Midwest (58%), West (58%) and South (57%) all agree that federal spending in response to disasters is emergency aid

Labor Unions Seen as Good for Workers, Not U.S. Competitiveness

Analyzes survey findings on views of private and public sector unions; their effects on salary and benefits, working conditions, productivity, availability of good jobs, and U.S. companies' global competitiveness; and which side to take in disputes

What Do We Really Know About Cosmic Acceleration?

Essentially all of our knowledge of the acceleration history of the Universe - including the acceleration itself - is predicated upon the validity of general relativity. Without recourse to this assumption, we use SNeIa to analyze the expansion history and find (i) very strong (5 sigma) evidence for a period of acceleration, (ii) strong evidence that the acceleration has not been constant, (iii) evidence for an earlier period of deceleration and (iv) only weak evidence that the Universe has not been decelerating since z~0.3.Comment: 9 pages, 8 figure

Impact of Fantasy Sports on Participants’ Interest in Real-League Occurrences

Fantasy sports have developed into their own significant section of the sport industry, accounting for $4 billion and having over 32 million participants in the United States and Canada (FSTA, 2012). Academic research into fantasy sports is a fairly new, and much of it has focused on motivation behind fantasy gaming, while any consumer behavior research has been focused on media consumption and team identification. This research is for determining what the relationship between fantasy sport participation and consumption of information about league current events, such as rule changes, labor issues, and team rebranding, is. The participants in this research took a survey posted on Facebook and Twitter, and were between 18 and 25 years of age. This information helps leagues find if fantasy sports help increase the depth of a fan’s commitment to the league. There was also information gathered about fantasy sports’ perception as a form of gambling, due its tumultuous past

Utilization of community resources in the primary grades.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston Universit

Implications of a scalar dark force for terrestrial experiments

A long-range intergalactic force between dark matter (DM) particles, mediated by an ultralight scalar, is tightly constrained by galactic dynamics and large scale structure formation. We examine the implications of such a ‘‘dark force” for several terrestrial experiments, including Eötvös tests of the Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP), direct-detection DM searches, and collider studies. The presence of a dark force implies a nonvanishing effect in Eötvös tests that could be probed by current and future experiments depending on the DM model. For scalar DM that is a singlet under the standard model gauge groups, a dark force of astrophysically relevant magnitude is ruled out in large regions of parameter space by the DM relic density and WEP constraints. WEP tests also imply constraints on the Higgs-exchange contributions to the spin-independent (SI) DM-nucleus direct-detection cross section. For WIMP scenarios, these considerations constrain Higgs-exchange contributions to the SI cross section to be subleading compared to gauge-boson mediated contributions. In multicomponent DM scenarios, a dark force would preclude large shifts in the rate for Higgs decay to two photons associated with DM-multiplet loops that might otherwise lead to measurable deviations at the LHC or a future linear collider. The combination of observations from galactic dynamics, large scale structure formation, Eötvös experiments, DM-direct-detection experiments, and colliders can further constrain the size of new long-range forces in the dark sector