All Hands Meeting 2003 Intellectual Property, Authorship, and Publishing – Session Notes Name of Leader: Gary Glover Presenters: Gary Glover, David Schetter Scribe: Martha Payne Refer to associated powerpoint presentations (2) Date: 10/09/2003

Issues Addressed  IP (legal definitions; options for BIRN)  Associations – confederation vs. consortium  BIRN’s broader definition of “IP”  Authorship  Acknowledgements  Recognition of BIRN or BIRN Test beds Authorship vs. acknowledgement  IP Task Force – draft report for Steering Committee

Intellectual Property and BIRN  IP - Legal Definition Patent - Usually included in employment agreement of researcher with their institution Copyright - Usually NOT included in employment agreement Trademark  BIRN will probably want to trademark the BIRN name/logo  BIRN Assets – potential IP Neuroimaging data Software

Considerations  Commercial vs. non-commercial use and distribution of BIRN assets  Assets that were pre-existing vs. those created exclusively for BIRN  Cooperation vs. competition  Want to allow for rapid communication?  Consolidated vs. disbursed IP rights

Inter-institution Associations  Confederation No formal contract between institutions Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – general agreement Rapid set-up Low overhead Easy to add/subtract institutions Can only GUIDE institutional behavior  Consortium New entity created Formal contract between institutions IP owned and managed separately by individual or institution Hard to establish and manage Expensive – high overhead Difficult to add/subtract institutions

BIRN “IP”  Expanded definition of IP Data, analyses, algorithms, scripts, publications  Distinguish contributions of working groups, individual site’s existing work, and collaborations Many BIRN assets are a combination of these  Publications How will BIRN be recognized?  Authorship (e.g. Human Morphology BIRN as author) vs. acknowledgement (e.g., BIRN, BIRN participants, and/or URL listed in all papers)  Minimum requirement will be acknowledgement of BIRN  Will this depend upon whether investigator in BIRN member? Authorship – follow accepted guidelines for who should/may be an author  May be conflicting guidelines across disciplines

Conclusions  General agreement that BIRN needs MOU  BIRN should establish general guidelines for: Authorship Requirements for acknowledging BIRN Other requirements for non-BIRN investigators who use BIRN data/tools  Notification of publications must be given to BIRN-CC Consider formation of a committee – for review of research proposals, papers  What should be the role of committee?  Should BIRN review “quality” of research proposed?  IP Task Force has prepared a draft for review by Steering Committee