Diamond open access | Wikipedia

Diamond open access refers to academic texts (such as monographs, edited collections, and journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to neither reader nor author. Alternative labels include platinum open access, non-commercial open access, cooperative open access or, more recently, open access commons. While these terms were first coined in the 2000s and the 2010s, they have been retroactively applied a variety of structure and forms of publishing from subsidized university publisher to volunteer-run cooperative that have existed in prior decades.

In 2021, it is estimated that between 17,000 and 29,000 scientific journals rely on a diamond open access model. They make up for 73%[1] of the journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals and 44% of the articles, as their mean output is smaller than commercial journals. The diamond model has been especially successful in Latin America-based journals (95% of OA journals[1]) following the emergence of large publicly supported platforms, such as SciELO and Redalyc.

In 2022, new national and international policies, such as the UNESCO recommendation on open science, and the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access promoted by the cOAlition S aim to support the development of non-commercial or community-driven forms open access publishing.


Defining open infrastructure in different contexts, 26 Aug 2022 | Turing Way Fireside Chat series

“For researchers, particularly those working in computational environments, the term “open infrastructure” has emerged to describe the tools and services needed to enable them: from IT systems to funding bodies, research data management protocols to open source software, just to name a few. As these systems have found their home in academic institutions, roles have emerged alongside them to enable innovation and maintenance: roles such as data stewards, research software engineers, and research application managers. With this being said, these socio-technical definitions of infrastructure extend beyond the research community to our broader societies at large: from digital identification to internet connectivity more broadly. This fireside chat brings together different perspectives on ‘open infrastructure’ within and around research environments in order to ask the question: what is open infrastructure anyway, for researchers and otherwise? How do these narratives and definitions of open infrastructure affect what kind of work is valued within them? Chaired by Rayya El Zein (Code for Science & Society) and Anne Lee Steele (The Turing Way), this panel will feature insights from Richard Dunks (Invest in Open Infrastructure), Lillian Achom (Access Plus) and Sarah Gibson (2i2c)….”

Toward a definition of digital object reuse | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present conceptual definitions for digital object use and reuse. Typically, assessment of digital repository content struggles to go beyond traditional usage metrics such as clicks, views or downloads. This is problematic for galleries, libraries, archives, museums and repositories (GLAMR) practitioners because use assessment does not tell a nuanced story of how users engage with digital content and objects.


This paper reviews prior research and literature aimed at defining use and reuse of digital content in GLAMR contexts and builds off of this group’s previous research to devise a new model for defining use and reuse called the use-reuse matrix.


This paper presents the use-reuse matrix, which visually represents eight categories and numerous examples of use and reuse. Additionally, the paper explores the concept of “permeability” and its bearing on the matrix. It concludes with the next steps for future research and application in the development of the Digital Content Reuse Assessment Framework Toolkit (D-CRAFT).

Practical implications

The authors developed this model and definitions to inform D-CRAFT, an Institute of Museum and Library Services National Leadership Grant project. This toolkit is being developed to help practitioners assess reuse at their own institutions.


To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to propose distinct definitions that describe and differentiate between digital object use and reuse in the context of assessing digital collections and data.

4 ways to increase peer review transparency to foster greater trust in the process

Putting research questions and methods before findings…

Employing more open peer review practices…

Developing shared peer-review standards and taxonomies…

Facilitating the sharing of review reports across journals….”

Research Update: COIs, Defining Infrastructure, and Exploring Utility Financing as a Useful Model

The following is a brief summary of our current plans for Catalog of Infrastructures, our work understanding the nature of infrastructure, and our initial working models for understanding the funding and operation of infrastructure services.


When I use a word . . . . Bioscience journals—an open and shut case?

The term “open access” as applied to journals, widely and now inescapably used, is misleading. It implies that access to other journals is restricted. The important factor, however, is not openness or restrictedness, but who pays for access, readers and their sponsors (reader-directed access) or authors and their sponsors (author-directed access). Emerging evidence suggests that authors in low income countries can be disadvantaged by current author-directed fees in the open access framework, a problem that needs to be tackled. The recent “diamond” model may be beneficial, but it is much too soon to know.

A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms | Nature Human Behaviour

“Open scholarship has transformed research, and introduced a host of new terms in the lexicon of researchers. The ‘Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Teaching’ (FORRT) community presents a crowdsourced glossary of open scholarship terms to facilitate education and effective communication between experts and newcomers….”

Glossary | FORRT – Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training

“In order to reduce barriers to entry and understanding, we present a Glossary of terms relating to open scholarship. We aim that the glossary will help clarify terminologies, including where terms are used differently/interchangeably or where terms are less known in some fields or among students. We also hope that this glossary will be a welcome resource for those new to these concepts, and that it helps grow their confidence in navigating discussions of open scholarship. We also hope that this glossary aids in mentoring and teaching, and allows newcomers and experts to communicate efficiently….

Following the success of Phase 1, we invite you to help us continue to improve this resource. We are interested in a wide range of contributions to improve existing definitions, extend the scope of the terms, as well as translating terms to improve accessibility. We have opened four live working documents (see the landing page for instructions and links to working documents). Please read the instructions for contributors. We have prepared these to help guide constructive feedback and facilitate a smooth editorial process.

We aim to regularly implement suggested changes and improvements. If you believe an existing definition is incorrect please contact the project leads, we aim to correct any mistakes as quickly as possible. We see the glossary as a potential starting point for other projects and resources the community feels may be needed. Please contact us if you have suggestions for publications or have ideas for related projects that could use or adapt the glossary….”

Breaking down language barriers and integrating social justice into open science

“Almost every scientific subject area uses its own specific vocabulary. It is obvious that this can lead to misinterpretations or misunderstandings among outsiders. One area that is particularly affected by this is open science. Reflecting the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be, among other things, openly accessible, transparent, reproducible, replicable, inclusive, and free, science developed numerous research-related terms and uses terminologies that have changed in meaning over time. This linguistic change can be a barrier to access and understanding open science. The international FORRT community (Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training) directed by Flávio Azevedo, a scientist from Jena, has therefore developed a glossary that defines and contextualises the most important terms. The glossary has now been published in the renowned scientific journal “Nature Human Behaviour”. …”

UNESCO publishes Recommendation on Open Science

“The Open Science document was adopted by 193 countries. For the first time, there is an international definition of Open Science.


About 70 % of scientific publications are behind paywalls. In the last two years, this has dropped to about 30 % for publications specifically on COVID-19. This is a strong signal that science can and should be more open.

For a long time, there was no universally accepted definition of Open Science. With the adoption of the Recommendation in November 2021, 193 countries agreed to adhere to common Open Science standards, values and guiding principles. 

Among other things, the Recommendation calls on member states to create regional and international funding mechanisms and establish the necessary infrastructure. 

In addition, seven areas are to be prioritised:

promoting a common understanding of open science and its associated benefits and challenges, as well as the diverse paths to open science;
developing an enabling policy environment for open science;
investing in infrastructure and services which contribute to open science;
investing in training, education, digital literacy and capacity-building, to enable researchers and other stakeholders to participate in open science;
fostering a culture of open science and aligning incentives for open science;
promoting innovative approaches to open science at different stages of the scientific process; and
promoting international and multistakeholder co-operation in the context of open science with a view to reducing digital, technological and knowledge gaps. …”

The use of (not) defining Citizen Science – Citizen Science | CS Track Project

“Even among researchers who are highly specialised on the topic there is no consensus about what exactly citizen science means. Funding agencies and policy makers also use it in various different ways:: “[…] no central authority or governing body oversees the field, and even agreeing about who counts as a citizen scientist is challenging.” (Rasmussen and Cooper, 2019, p. 1) But while there is a broad consensus that the term is fuzzy, the question whether it should be defined at all remains controversial….”

The use of (not) defining Citizen Science – Citizen Science | CS Track Project

“Even among researchers who are highly specialised on the topic there is no consensus about what exactly citizen science means. Funding agencies and policy makers also use it in various different ways:: “[…] no central authority or governing body oversees the field, and even agreeing about who counts as a citizen scientist is challenging.” (Rasmussen and Cooper, 2019, p. 1) But while there is a broad consensus that the term is fuzzy, the question whether it should be defined at all remains controversial….”

OLCreate: Glossary: Open Science in the Life Sciences

This glossary is a collection of terms, definitions and resources regarding all things open science in biomedicine and the life sciences. Throughout the course there will be small assignments on different aspects of open research methods. You will be asked to post your results here. Thereby, you and your peers will fill this shared glossary together making it a collection of helpful information and practical knowledge that you can use after the course is finished.