What is known about GetFTR at the end of 2019

What is known about GetFTR at the end of 2019

In early December 2019, a group of publishers announced
Get-Full-Text-Research
, or GetFTR for short.
There was a heck of a response on social media, and the response was—on the whole—not positive from my librarian-dominated corner of Twitter.
For my early take on GetFTR, see my December 3rd blog post »
Publishers going-it-alone (for now?) with GetFTR
.»
As that post title suggests, I took the five founding GetFTR publishers to task on their take-it-or-leave-it approach.
I think that is still a problem.
To get you caught up, here is a list of other commentary.
Roger Schonfeld’s December 3rd »
Publishers Announce a Major New Service to Plug Leakage
» piece in
The Scholarly Kitchen
Tweet from
Herbert Van de Sompel
, the lead author of the OpenURL spec, on
solving the appropriate copy problem
December 5th post »
Get To Fulltext Ourselves, Not GetFTR.
» on the
Open Access Button
blog
Twitter thread on December 7th between
@cshillum
and
@lisalibrarian
on the
positioning of GetFTR in relation to link resolvers and an unanswered question about how GetFTR aligns with library interests
Twitter thread started by
@TAC_NISO
on December 9th
looking for more information
with a link to
an STM Association presentation
added by
@aarontay
A tree of tweets starting from
@mrgunn
‘s
[I don’t trust publishers to decide] is the crux of the whole thing.
In particular, threads of that tweet that include
Jason Griffey of NISO saying he knew nothing about GetFTR
and
Bernhard Mittermaier’s point about hidden motivations behind GetFTR
Twitter thread started by
@aarontay
on December 7th saying
«GetFTR is bad for researchers/readers and librarians. It only benefits publishers, change my mind.»
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe’s December 10th »
Why are Librarians Concerned about GetFTR?
» in
The Scholarly Kitchen
and take note of the follow-up discussion in the comments
Twitter thread between
@alison_mudditt
and
@lisalibrarian
clarifying
PLOS is
not
on the Advisory Board
with some
@TAC_NISO
as well.
Ian Mulvany’s December 11th »
thoughts on GetFTR
» on ScholCommsProd
GetFTR’s December 11th »
Updating the community
» post on their website
The Spanish Federation of Associations of Archivists, Librarians, Archaeologists, Museologists and Documentalists (ANABAD)’s December 12th »
GetFTR: new publishers service to speed up access to research articles
» (original in Spanish,
Google Translate to English
)
December 20th news entry from eContent Pro with the title »
What GetFTR Means for Journal Article Access
» which I’ll only quarrel with this sentence: «Thus, GetFTR is a service where Academic articles are found and provided to you at absolutely no cost.» No—if you are in academia the cost is born by your
library
even if you don’t see it. But this seems like a third party service that isn’t directly related to publishers or libraries, so perhaps they can be forgiven for not getting that nuance.
Wiley’s
Chemistry Views
news post o…