Diamond Open Access: Removing Barriers in Scholarly Publishing

Diamond open access removes author and reader fees, offering an equitable alternative to APC publishing & supporting inclusive global research access.

 

Open access was meant to democratize science. Instead, it has created a new barrier—one that charges authors instead of readers. Over the past decade, the dominant “gold” open-access model has shifted publishing costs to article processing charges, which now average around $2,600 and can exceed $10,000 in some journals. For researchers in under-resourced institutions or in the Global South, this model often replaces one paywall with another. Subscription paywalls once limited who could read the literature; article processing charges now limit who can publish in it. The result is a system that, while expanding visibility for some, excludes many others from full participation in the global research conversation.

Diamond open access offers a different path. In this model, neither readers nor authors pay fees. Journals are funded collectively by universities, scholarly societies, libraries, or public research agencies and operate as academic community infrastructure rather than commercial services. UNESCO describes diamond open access as a system that treats scholarly knowledge as a public good, supported by shared infrastructure and open licensing. The approach prioritizes bibliodiversity—supporting multilingual and regionally grounded scholarship often overlooked by commercial publishing markets.

A 2021 study commissioned by cOAlition S and Science Europe revealed the unexpected scale of this ecosystem. Researchers estimated between 17,000 and 29,000 diamond journals worldwide, producing roughly 356,000 articles annually—around 8–9 percent of global scholarly output. Most operate on extremely modest budgets, often below €10,000 per year, supported by universities, scholarly societies, and public research agencies. The majority publish fewer than 50 articles annually and are especially prominent in the humanities and social sciences.

In practice, this structure has enabled broader participation. Platforms such as SciELO and Redalyc in Latin America have operated for decades with the vast majority of journals free to both authors and readers, emphasizing research that addresses local priorities alongside international relevance. Multilingual publishing thrives in these environments, allowing scholars to communicate in languages other than English without financial penalty. Readers worldwide gain immediate access without institutional subscriptions or personal payments, while authors from low- and middle-income countries avoid the choice between paying fees or forgoing open-access dissemination. The model aligns with the principle that publicly funded research should remain a public asset, not a commodity traded through transactional charges.

Yet the diamond ecosystem faces real operational pressures. Many journals rely heavily on volunteer labor and fragmented funding, which can prove unsustainable over time. The journal Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, after moving to a diamond model, ceased publication in 2025. Its founding editor explained the decision in stark terms: “Our 20th year will be our last … we cannot see any way that the journal can survive sustainably on the basis of gift labour.” Surveys of diamond journals in Africa have identified financial constraints as the leading challenge, followed closely by shortages of human resources for peer review, copyediting, and technical maintenance. Visibility remains limited; many titles are underrepresented in major indexing services, appear only in PDF format, and lack comprehensive metadata or long-term digital preservation. These issues do not undermine the model’s principles but highlight the practical requirements for durability: stable funding, shared technical services, and coordinated support structures.

Recognizing these challenges, several international initiatives are attempting to strengthen the diamond ecosystem. The Action Plan for Diamond Open Access, endorsed by more than 160 organizations, promotes shared standards, infrastructure, and governance models. European projects such as DIAMAS and CRAFT-OA are developing quality frameworks and technical services for institutional publishers, while UNESCO has begun coordinating global discussions on sustainable diamond publishing infrastructures. The financial logic is straightforward. Universities and research funders already spend billions annually on subscription contracts and APC payments. Redirecting even a fraction of these expenditures toward shared publishing infrastructure could stabilize thousands of community-run journals at relatively low cost. In the Netherlands, for example, targeted grants have supported journals transitioning to diamond operations without imposing new author fees. Similar modest investments elsewhere—through library hosting, society subsidies, or pooled national funds—could address the most common pain points without recreating market dependencies.

The broader stakes involve more than operational efficiency. When publication fees determine who enters the scholarly record, research agendas subtly shift toward topics and regions that can afford the charges. Fields in the humanities and social sciences, where funding is often scarcer, are particularly affected, as are emerging scholars and institutions outside well-resourced networks. Diamond open access counters this dynamic by design, treating publishing as a collective responsibility rather than an individual or institutional transaction. It preserves editorial independence within academic communities and encourages the kind of specialized, locally relevant scholarship that commercial models may undervalue. At the same time, the documented closures and resource strains serve as reminders that equity requires infrastructure. A model built on goodwill alone risks fragility; one anchored in deliberate, transparent public investment gains resilience.

Critics sometimes argue that diamond journals cannot match the scale or technical sophistication of large commercial publishers. That observation contains an element of truth—many diamond titles remain small and discipline-specific—but it also misses the point. The goal is not to replicate high-volume, profit-driven systems but to sustain a diverse ecology of outlets that serve different communities and purposes. Bibliodiversity, in this context, is not an aesthetic preference but a functional necessity: different languages, methodologies, and audiences require tailored publishing channels. Coordinated efforts to provide shared platforms for copyediting, plagiarism checks, and archiving can raise quality across the board without centralizing control or introducing fees. The experience of established regional platforms demonstrates that such arrangements are feasible when institutions commit to them as core infrastructure rather than optional extras.

Policy makers and research leaders therefore face a clear set of choices. They can continue subsidizing a hybrid landscape in which APCs replace subscriptions while still leaving gaps in access and participation. Or they can treat scholarly communication as public infrastructure deserving sustained, non-commercial support. The latter path does not require massive new appropriations; it requires smarter allocation of existing resources and clearer recognition that publishing costs are legitimate research expenses best borne collectively. Tenure and promotion criteria could reward contributions to diamond journals and platforms. Funders could include diamond-supporting activities within open-science mandates. Libraries could expand their roles from subscribers to publishers and hosts. Each step would reinforce the others, creating conditions in which diamond open access moves from a resilient minority to a more central component of the global system.

The evolution of scholarly publishing has replaced one barrier with another: subscription paywalls once restricted access, and APCs now restrict authorship. Diamond open access offers a structural alternative—one that removes financial barriers on both sides while restoring publishing governance to the academic community itself. Whether it becomes a marginal experiment or a central pillar of scholarly communication will depend on choices made now by universities, libraries, and research funders. The evidence from existing diamond journals, regional platforms, and emerging coordination efforts shows both the potential and the requirements for success. Meeting those requirements would represent a pragmatic step toward the original promise of open science: knowledge produced through public support and made available without additional cost to any interested reader or qualified contributor. The infrastructure exists in outline; what remains is the collective decision to invest in and sustain it.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html