“Get Full Text Research (GetFTR), a free service that enables faster access for researchers to published journal articles, now supports access to more than half of global research output.
This year has already seen partnerships with aerospace publisher AIAA; the American Society for Microbiology ASM; digital library platform DeepDyve; scientific publisher IOP Publishing; research tool SciFinder; and Elsevier’s abstract and citation database Scopus, all go live. Holding partnerships with over 35 publishers and integrators, GetFTR now supports streamlined access to more than 51 per cent of global research output….”
“Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) continues to strengthen its commitment on improving access for the research community through newly established partnerships. The start of the year has seen: aerospace publisher AIAA; the American Society for Microbiology
ASM; digital library platform DeepDyve; scientific publisher IOP Publishing; research tool SciFinder; and Elsevier’s abstract and citation database Scopus, all go live. Holding partnerships with over 35 publishers and integrators, GetFTR now supports streamlined access to over 51% of global research output….”
Abstract: Vendors and publishers collaborate and work to protect their bottom line — which is threatened by open access (OA) — by expanding into research lifecycle and data analytics, and by continuing to merge and acquire each other, reducing choice in the library market. The implementation of Seamless Access and other systems force library staff into the position of gatekeeper for systems and platforms that we have no control or input over. Vendors and publishers control the online content that librariescan access: they add and remove content at will, and classify titles according to their greatest possible sales margins, making valuable resources unavailable to libraries to license for campus-wide access. These vendor actions—which impact the research lifecycle as a whole, disrupt traditional publishing, and seek to monetize user data—are extremely concerning. Collective action is the only way to make significant inroads against these developments. We suggestsome proactive ways that we can initiate these collective actions and resist these industry-wide developments imposed by vendors and publishers.
“Now, the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Taylor & Francis and Wiley will collaborate with ScienceDirect on a six-month pilot project to better understand how we can address these challenges.
During the pilot, researchers will be able to search and browse more than 70,000 articles in 35 journals from these participating publishers, alongside Elsevier’s content on ScienceDirect. The journals are all Organic Chemistry and Transportation titles, including most of the top journals in these fields. …”
“Earlier today Elsevier announced a pilot project in which the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley will syndicate selected content to the ScienceDirect platform. The articles will appear in search and browse listings….
For purposes of the pilot, the display and access to full text will vary from the Elsevier content. Abstracts of the pilot content will be viewable on ScienceDirect. When the pilot content is open access, the text will be available on ScienceDirect; however, the user will be linked to the original publisher’s website for the formatted PDF. If the content is only available by subscription, users will be linked to the original publisher’s website with no display of full text on ScienceDirect. Users who are entitled to the subscription content, as determined on ScienceDirect through GetFTR functionality, will be linked directly to the full text on the original publisher’s website. …
In essence, this pilot reminds us that ScienceDirect is already a freely available discovery tool and a user of ScienceDirect gets all of the benefits of a subscription database, whether they are only able to access the open access publications on the platform or if their entitlements enable access to subscription Elsevier – and now other publisher – content as well. …”
“The American Medical Association and Rockefeller University Press have today announced their partnership with Get Full Text Research (GetFTR), a free-to-use solution for Discovery Services, Reference Managers, and other integrators that supports researchers by streamlining how they discover and access content on and off campus. Both publishers host their journal content on the Silverchair Platform, which joined GetFTR recently….”
“Future Science Group (FSG) has today joined Get Full Text Research (GetFTR), enabling a growing body of global researchers to benefit from faster and streamlined access to content on and off campus, via affiliated discovery tools and scholarly platforms.
FSG becomes the eighth publisher to provide entitlement information through GetFTR, joining the American Chemical Society, American Society of Civil Engineers, Elsevier, Karger, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis Group, and Wiley. The addition of FSG will further enable researchers to seamlessly access over 86,000,000 research articles from a global body of literature….”
“It was against this backdrop that I read Exploring Researcher Preference for the Version of Record, which reported on research Springer Nature conducted in collaboration with ResearchGate. It is perhaps obvious to caveat that it is in Springer Nature’s interests to use this study to reinforce the value of the VOR, a central position of a recent keynote by CEO Frank Vrancken Peeters at the APE 2021 conference.
The study was conducted “in situ” and leveraged the Springer Nature syndication pilot project that posted VOR articles for access on the ResearchGate platform. As Mithu Lucraft, Director for Content Marketing Strategy, of the Springer Nature Group and one of the study’s co-authors explained to me, the survey was presented to ResearchGate users that were logged in and who had interacted with at least one Springer Nature publication in the 60 days prior to the survey being live in October 2020.
Importantly, survey participants were not only asked to choose which version of an article they prefer but also which versions they would feel comfortable using for different purposes. In many cases, participants indicated that multiple different versions would be acceptable for a given use, which indicates that a preprint or accepted manuscript can substitute for the VOR in some use cases but perhaps not all. …”
“Utilizing real time entitlement checks, GetFTR streamlines access to published journal content from discovery tools and scholarly collaboration networks, both for subscription and open access content. Dead ends are minimized for researchers as they can easily determine which content their institution has made available to them, both on or off-campus via the visual GetFTR link. (Think visually like the Amazon Prime trust mark). While we don’t pretend to put GetFTR forward as the sole solution, it is a more streamlined and sustainable way to support all in facilitating easier access to research, globally, from any location.
Responses have been predominantly positive, and to date, ten publishers and a further 11 integrators have already signed on. From a user perspective, we have seen month-on-month growth of positive links returned and have received very useful feedback. However, we have not been immune to criticism or misunderstanding of the service, particularly how GetFTR impacts the role of librarians and link resolvers, privacy, and the need to provide more flexibility and support for integrators of the service….”
“CHORUS (chorusaccess.org), the non-profit membership organization, is now using Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) technology to speed up and enhance their open research audit process.
CHORUS is applying the GetFTR API to further automate the gathering and checking of key data on journal articles and conference proceedings from multiple publishers, supporting the organization’s mission of advancing sustainable, cost-effective public access to content reporting on research funded by public organizations. For GetFTR, this means its technology is being used in increasingly innovative ways to support the discovery of research….
The GetFTR service is now being used by six publishers and eight integrating partners, including CHORUS, Dimensions, Figshare, Mendeley, Papers and the Researcher app.”
“Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) is a new solution that enables faster access for researchers to the published journal articles they need. It is free to use for the research community, libraries, and integrators and operates on a tiered pricing structure for publishers. Built on trusted technology to work on and off-campus, GetFTR integrates with online research services and discovery platforms to provide direct, authenticated links to the most up to date and best version of the journal article, both on- and off-campus. More detail and FAQs are available here: www.getfulltextresearch.com….”
“The webinar where Cory presented was the first mention I’d seen of a new group called the Scholarly Networks Security Initiative (SNSI). SNSI is the latest in a series of publisher-driven initiatives to reduce the paywall’s friction for paying users or library patrons coming from licensing institutions. GetFTR (my thoughts) and Seamless Access (my thoughts). (Disclosure: I’m serving on two working groups for Seamless Access that are focused on making it possible for libraries to sensibly and sanely integrate the goals of Seamless Access into campus technology and licensing contracts.)…”
“I question whether such rich personally identifiably information (PII) is required to prevent illicit account access. If it is collected at all, there are more than enough data points here (obviously excluding username and account information) to deanonymize individuals and reveal exactly what they looked at and when so it should not be kept on hand too long for later analysis.
Another related, though separate endeavor is GetFTR which aims to bypass proxies (and thereby potential library oversight of use) entirely. There is soo much which could be written about both these efforts and this post only scratches the surface of some of the complex issues and relationships affect by them.
The first thing I was curious about was, who is bankrolling these efforts? They list the backers on their websites but I always find it interesting as to who is willing to fund the coders and infrastructure. I looked up both GetFTR and SNSI in the IRS Tax Exempt database as well as the EU Find a Company portal and did not find any results. So I decided to do a little more digging matching WHOIS data in the hopes that something might pop out, nothing interesting came of this so I put it at the very bottom….
It should come as no surprise that Elsevier, Springer Nature, ACS, and Wiley – which previous research has shown are the publishers producing the most research downloaded in the USA from Sci-Hub – are supporting both efforts. Taylor & Francis presumably feels sufficiently threatened such that they are along for the ride….”
“JP: How do you see open scholarly infrastructure developing in the next few years?
CS: There are a number of fairly well-established open scholarly infrastructure organizations such as Crossref, ORCID, and DataCite, and we definitely need to look at how we can work more effectively together to deliver what I might call joined-up capabilities and joined-up experiences to our mutual users and members. So I think that’s one thing I’d like to see developed. But there are also lots of gaps.
We know that there’s huge interest in enabling scholars to represent their work in ways that are challenging because there still aren’t identifiers for every kind of research output, and there aren’t good taxonomies of every kind of contribution that research has made. I don’t necessarily think it’s ORCID’s role to take all of that on, but we can work with our fellow scholarly infrastructure initiatives to lay the path for other groups to come along and benefit from our collective experience. …
So I was involved in a set of very early discussions which led to the RA21 recommendations, and then in turn to SeamlessAccess, which is all about applying modern authentication technology to ease the problems researchers face with access to resources that their institutions have provided for them. This has a close tie-in with ORCID and CrossRef because it’s ultimately about getting some of these barriers out of the way so researchers can focus on doing the research without having to struggle with systems that aren’t joined up properly. Most recently, I’ve been working on an initiative called GetFTR which is about improving the user journey between all manner of tools and content discovery systems and authoritative published content.
I guess some people might say that these problems will diminish with the move to Open Access, but if you look at SeamlessAccess, it’s about improving access to many kinds of resources that researchers need and their institutions have to vouch that they should have access to, like shared research infrastructure and research collaboration tools. We know from researchers themselves that they really appreciate a lot less hassle dealing with usernames and passwords and access control, for all kinds of resources. So that’s really what SeamlessAccess is all about. It’s not done yet, but we’ve made some good progress in starting to solve that problem and make it easier….
But I think the most difficult and most satisfying milestone which kind of coincided with when I left the Board was when ORCID finally got to sustainability and financial break-even. The most challenging thing over the past decade has been finding a model that enabled us to provide a vast majority of ORCID services freely and openly, yet with enough support to sustain the organization. It’s so easy to underestimate just how difficult that is in the world of open infrastructure, and it was a great achievement for everyone—for the team, for founding Executive Director Laure Haak, and the Board to eventually get to that point after almost 10 years….”