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.

 

Edinburgh Diamond | The University of Edinburgh

Welcome to Edinburgh Diamond, a service provided by Edinburgh University Library that supports the publication of academic and student-led Open Access books and journals.

Edinburgh Diamond is provided free of charge to University of Edinburgh staff and students. We also provide a paid-for shared service for SCURL and external partners.

See our below pages to find our more about our book hosting service and our journal hosting service, including what we offer and how to submit your book/journal proposal.

 

Neuromatch Open Publishing – White Paper

“We need to replace our outdated and undemocratic publishing system with one which is free to read and publish, reliable, archival, flexible and democratically governed. We propose to do so with a two layer system. The foundational layer is a commonly owned, distributed infrastructure that will maintain a freely and openly accessible database built on a flexible graph structure to allow new and arbitrary methods of publishing and scholarly productivity. The services layer will be provided by a number of third parties building on this flexible infrastructure….”

Neuromatch Open Publishing

“We need to replace our outdated and undemocratic scholarly publishing system.

The time is right for researchers to take back control of publishing.

Neuromatch is delighted to announce a new initiative to build an open publishing platform based on these principles:

Common ownership

A system owned and managed by a coalition of university libraries ensuring it is safe and reliable in the long term, and cannot be sold for profit. Community governance ensuring that it stays responsive to the needs of different types of researchers.

Free to read and publish

An inclusive system where everyone is welcome regardless of their ability to pay. No research funding wasted on inflated publisher profits.

Open and re-usable data

Designed for the future. Third parties and communities can build their own journals and tools on top of an open database. A flexible, graph-based data format that allows for experiments in new types of articles and forms of peer review….

For more details, see our white paper….”

New Project. DIAMAS, building capacity for OA diamond publishing

The institutional OA diamond publishing sector can be challenged by fragmentation; its visibility can be limited, its service of varying quality, and its sustainability is not always secure. A new European Commission-funded project, DIAMAS, aims to build capacity amongst institutional publishers in Europe to address some of these challenges. It will run for 30-months and started on 1 September with 23 partners collaborating. SPARC Europe is one of the project’s partners.

DIAMAS receives grant to develop Diamond Open Access publishing in Europe | Plan S

Aix-Marseille Université, cOAlition S, and Science Europe are pleased to announce that they are participating in a Horizon Europe project called ‘Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication’ (DIAMAS). The 3-year project, launched on the 1st of September 2022, receives funding in the context of the Horizon Europe call on Capacity-building for institutional open access publishing across Europe.

The DIAMAS project, which was awarded a grant of €3m, brings together 23 European organisations that will map out the landscape of Diamond Open Access publishing in the European Research Area and develop common standards, guidelines and practices for the Diamond publishing sector. The project partners will also formulate recommendations for research institutions to coordinate sustainable support for Diamond publishing activities across Europe.

Moreover, the DIAMAS project will interact closely with the global community of the ‘Action Plan for Diamond Open Access’ signatories. While the project will spearhead some of the activities laid out in the Action Plan, it welcomes complementary actions and contributions. As a first step, DIAMAS project partners and members of the Diamond Open Access Plan Community had the chance to meet and discuss collaboration opportunities during the Diamond Open Access Conference (Zadar, Croatia, 19 – 20 September 2022).

 

Why making academic research free is complicated – Vox

“Freeing research largely paid for by taxpayer money can seem like a no-brainer, but over time, the potential downsides of open science efforts like the Plan S mandate have become more apparent. While pay-to-publish but free-to-read platforms bring more research to the public, they can add barriers for researchers and worsen some existing inequalities in academia. Scientific publishing will remain a for-profit industry and a highly lucrative one for publishers. Shifting the fees onto authors doesn’t change this.

Many of the newly founded open-access journals drop the fees entirely, but even if they’re not trying to make a profit, they still need to cover their operating costs. They fall back on ad revenue, individual donations or philanthropic grants, corporate sponsorship, and even crowdfunding.

But open-access platforms often lack the prestige of well-known top journals like Nature. Scientists early in their careers — as well as those at less wealthy universities in low-income countries — often rely on precarious, short-term grant funding to carry out their research. Their career depends on putting out an impressive publication record, which is already an uphill battle….”

 

Capacity-building for institutional open access publishing across Europe

“Projects are expected to contribute to the following expected outcomes:

Improved understanding of the current landscape of institutional scientific publishing activities across Europe.
Coordination amongst institutional publishing services and initiatives across Europe at the non-technological level and improve their overall service efficiency, in particular in a multilingual environment.
Actionable recommendations for strategies regarding institutional publishing in research performing organisations across the European Research Area.

These targeted outcomes in turn contribute to medium and long-term impacts:

Increased equity, diversity and inclusivity of open science practices in the European Research Area.
Increased capacity in the EU R&I system to conduct open science and set it as a modus operandi of modern science.

Scope:

Recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in open access publishing activities. Commercial scientific publishers and other service providers have turned their attention to open access publishing, responding to increased demand for open access by funders and research performing organisations. Research institutions have also developed their own open access publishing activities and services. These are either new and based on open access publishing, or are existing publishing activities transitioning into the new digital and open access environment. Libraries are often involved, while new types of mission-driven open access university presses are also emerging in Europe and beyond. Such initiatives do not require article fees for publishing, and are often supported by their institutions. They enable open access publishing of journals and other types of outcomes in various languages and are important in supporting multilingualism in Europe. At the same time, they often have not gained the prestige bestowed on established publishing venues, usually produced in collaboration with well-known commercial scientific publishers. Moreover, institutional publishing in the social sciences and the humanities is often in languages other than English, which is both an asset and a limitation….”

Removing author fees can help open access journals make research available to everyone

“Publishing a journal requires money, but that amounts to only 10 to 15 per cent of what publishers charge authors to make their work open access. Author fees are disproportionate with publishing costs, and correlate to the journal’s prestige, impact and profit model.

In this environment, author fees will continue to increase so long as someone can pay for it. It also means that open access publishing privileges a certain set of researchers….”

A fair pricing model for open access – Research Professional News

“The average research grant in South Africa, excluding strategic and infrastructure investments, is approximately 146,000 rand (€8,500). In 2021, the average charge for publishing an open-access research paper was nearly €1,600. High-impact journals charge far more: €9,500 at Nature, for example.

Here, in a nutshell, is the inequity of the financial model of open-access publishing. As currently constituted, publishing charges are stifling research capability and progress, as well as the career progression of researchers in low- and middle-income countries, and preventing a full transition to open research.

We need to move towards a globally agreed payment system for academic publishing services that is fair, equitable, transparent, and does not require the author to pay. In this article, we sketch the outline of such an alternative payment system….

It is unclear why APCs and transformative agreements are not priced as a function of what local markets can bear. The consequence, however, is stark: for the most part, researchers and institutions based in lower- and middle-income countries simply cannot afford either of these pay-per-article models. While some of these countries have negotiated cost-neutral transformative agreements, it is not clear whether these are equitable in terms of local purchasing power.

In much of the world, the money is not there to pay APCs geared to the richest nations—especially as APCs have consistently risen faster than inflation. Countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development spend an average of 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product on R&D. For the United States, the figure is 3.5 per cent. In Latin America and the Caribbean, in contrast, the average is 0.7 per cent, while South Africa’s figure of 0.75 per cent is well above the continent’s average of just 0.4 per cent.

Admittedly, some researchers may apply for publishing fees to be waived, but there is no globally agreed way for publishers to handle waivers, and researchers working in middle-income countries tend not to be eligible for such support. Moreover, waivers are often perceived as patronising and neocolonial. They are an in-or-out mechanism unilaterally controlled by the publisher, denying any agency to recipients.

Asking for a waiver imposes significant effort on authors. Waivers are also a financial risk to publishers who are understandably reluctant to award them. A submission to a 2020 consultation by the UK foreign ministry calculated that 57 per cent of hybrid journals from major publishers, which offer both subscriptions and open access, and 70 per cent of open-access journals published by small independent or university presses, did not offer fee waivers or discounts. The most visible global initiative delivering waivers, Research4Life, reports that, while effective, usage of its resources remains limited and has declined.

The system for meeting the costs of academic publishing is globally inequitable. This was underscored by the landmark United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) Recommendation on Open Science of November 2021, which insisted that scholarly communication adopt “the principles of open, transparent and equitable access”. The recent memorandum from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, setting out a plan for open access to federally funded research from 2026, adds ‘equitable’ as a third condition to the more familiar requirements for ‘free’ and ‘immediate’ access. Equitable open access has therefore assumed a particular urgency….”

Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process | SciELO Preprints

Khanna , S., Ball, J., Alperin, J. P., & Willinsky, J. (2022). Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process. In SciELO Preprints. https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.4729

Abstract: By analyzing 25,671 journals largely absent from journal counts and indexes, this study demonstrates that scholarly communication is more of a global endeavor than is commonly credited. These journals, employing the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS), have published 5.8 million items and represent 136 countries, with 79.9 percent publishing in the Global South and 84.2 percent following the OA diamond model (charging neither reader nor author). More than half (54.6 percent) of the journals operate in more than one language, while publishing research in 60 languages (led by English, Indonesian, Spanish, and Portuguese). The journals are distributed across the social sciences (45.9 percent), STEM (40.3 percent), and the humanities (13.8 percent). For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, the Web of Science indexes 1.2 percent of the journals and Scopus 5.7 percent. On the other hand, Cabells Predatory Reports includes 1.0 percent of the journals, while Beall lists 1.4 percent of them as predatory. A recognition of the expanded scope and scale of scholarly publishing will help ensure that humankind takes full advantage of what is increasingly a global research enterprise.

 

Dr. h.c. Johan Rooryck – an in-depth interview | Open Science Talk

Abstract:  On 1 September 2022, professor of linguistics and director of cOAlition S Johan Rooryck was created a doctor honoris causa at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. In this in-depth interview, Rooryck reflects on his career so far and shares his vision of a future where scholar-led, fair and equitable open access prevails over commercial publishing structures.

Johan Rooryck starts out by explaining how he became the editor-in-chief of the high-ranking journal Lingua in 1999, how his relations with the publisher Elsevier became increasingly strained, and how he succeeded in bringing all his co-editors along in a sensational break with Elsevier. Instead, they launched the fully open access journal Glossa (now a high-ranking journal of general linguistics) at the platform Open Library of Humanities, in 2015. Rooryck in particular dwells on the non-commercial model known as Diamond Open Access, with no charges facing either readers or authors. Speaking on behalf of Plan S and the cOAlition S, whose executive director he became in 2019, Rooryck also broadens the view to all forms of open access, including open access to books and research data. At the end, he looks ahead to the future, when faced with the final, fundamental question: are you an optimist?

Diamond Open Access Journals Germany (DOAG) Version 1.1

Bruns, A., Cakir, Y., Kaya, S., Beidaghi, S., & Taubert, N. C. (2022). Diamond Open Access Journals Germany (DOAG) Version 1.1. Bielefeld University. https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2965484

Output produced under the remit of CODRIA: Community-Driven Open-Access-Journale zwischen wissenschaftlichen und ressourcenbezogenen Anforderungen (Community driven open access journals between scientific and economic requirements), a project funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF funding no. 16TOA001).

‘Diamond Open Access Journals, Germany’ (DOAG) is a quality controlled list that contains information about diamond open access (OA) journals hosted in Germany. It was created by using different data sources that are free of charge and was compiled from March 2022 to July 2022.

Two files are provided:
DOAG_1_1.csv is a list with ISSN from Diamond Open Access Journals. Please note that a Diamond Open Access Journal may appear more than once in the list, if it has more than one ISSN.

DOAG_1_1_Journals.csv is a list with distinct Diamond Open Access Journals. Please note that each journal appears only once in the list. Only ISSN_L (but not all registered ISSN for the journals) are included as journal identifiers.

 

Libraries take charge

“The Open Access publishing landscape: why academic libraries are entering the Open Access publishing space….

Academic publishing is changing, and university libraries are becoming more intrinsically woven into the fabric of the new landscape. Although publishers affiliated with universities, such as Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, have been around for centuries, university libraries are now launching their own publishing and content hosting initiatives, usually with a sole focus on Open Access. If you’re not familiar with it, Open Access is part of a movement to facilitate the free exchange of knowledge and widen access globally. It often entails publishing academic articles, books, resources and content under public copyright licences, usually Creative Commons licenses, to enable free distribution and reuse of the work under certain conditions.

 

The past decade has seen the launch of several new university presses in the UK dedicated to publishing Open Access research, including Cardiff University Press (launched in 2014), UCL Press (2015), the University of Westminster Press (2015), White Rose Press (2016) and, most recently, the Scottish Universities Press (2022). At the same time, libraries have been carving out their own space in the publishing sphere, providing hosting solutions to their academics, staff and students. Initiatives include the University of St Andrews Journal Hosting Service, Liverpool John Moores University Open Journals Service and Edinburgh Diamond (which I manage)….”

Charting variety, scope, and impact of open access diamond journals in various disciplines and regions: a survey-based observational study

Abstract
Purpose: The variety, scope, and impact of open access (OA) diamond journals across
disciplines and regions from July 22 to September 11, 2020 were charted to characterize
the current OA diamond landscape.

Methods: The total number of diamond journals was estimated, including those outside the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The distribution across regions, disciplines, and
publisher types was described. The scope of journals in terms of authorship and readership
was investigated. Information was collected on linguistic diversity, journal dynamics and life
cycle, and their visibility in scholarly databases.

Results: The number of OA diamond journals is estimated to be 29,000. OA diamond journals
are estimated to publish 356,000 articles per year. The OA diamond sector is diverse in terms of
regions (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, and 5% in the United States/Cana-
da) and disciplines (60% humanities and social sciences, 22% sciences, and 17% medicine). More
than 70% of OA diamond journals are published by university-owned publishers, including uni-
versity presses. The majority of OA diamond journals are small, publishing fewer than 25 articles
a year. English (1,210), Spanish (492), and French (342) are the most common languages of the
main texts. Out of 1,619 journals, 1,025 (63.3%) are indexed in DOAJ, 492 (30.4%) in Scopus,
and 321 (19.8%) in Web of Science.

Conclusion: The patterns and trends reported herein provide insights into the diversity and im-
portance of the OA diamond journal landscape and the accompanying opportunities and chal-
lenges in supporting this publishing model.