Diamond open access

Last updated
Diamond among the different open access models Open Access colours Venn.svg
Diamond among the different open access models

Diamond open access refers to academic texts (such as monographs, edited collections, and journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to either reader or 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 to a variety of structures and forms of publishing, from subsidized university publishers to volunteer-run cooperatives that existed in prior decades.

Contents

In 2021, it is estimated that between 17,000 and 29,000 scientific journals rely on a diamond open access model. They make up 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. However, Diamond OA journals are under-represented in the major scholarly databases, such as Web of Science and Scopus. It is also noteworthy, that high-income countries "have the highest share of authorship in every domain and type of journal, except for diamond journals in the social sciences and humanities". [2]

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.

Context and definition

Historical roots of diamond models: knowledge clubs and commons

An early example of community-run journal, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Philosophical Transactions Volume 1 frontispiece.jpg
An early example of community-run journal, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Until the Second World War, academic publishing was mostly characterized by a wide range of community-driven scholarly structures with little concern for profitability. [3] Most journals of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century were collective initiatives led by a scientific movement or institution [4] that largely relied on informal community norms rather than commercial regulations. [5] These historical practices have been described as a form of knowledge commons, [6] [7] or, more specifically, as a knowledge club that holds an intermediary status between a knowledge commons and a private company: while managed by a community, journals are mostly used to the benefit of a selected set of authors and readers. [8]

In Western Europe and North America, direct ownership of journals by academic communities and institutions started to wane in the 1950s. The expansion of scientific publishing in the context of big science led to a perceived "crisis" of the historical model of scientific periodicals. [9] [10] Between 1950 and 1980, the new model of large commercial publishers came to dominate numerous fields of scientific publishing in western countries: [11]

The small society presses, struggling to cope with growing scale, were supported and then largely supplanted by the 'Big 5' commercial presses: Elsevier (which acquired Pergamon in 1991), Wiley, Springer, Taylor & Francis and Sage. These newly-empowered players brought an industrial approach to the publication and dissemination process, for the first time realising the benefits that these specialised capital and skills could provide by operating at a scale that was unprecedented to that date. [3]

This transformation had wide-ranging consequences over the way scientific journals were managed, not only at the economic but also at the editorial level with an increased standardization of publishing norms, peer-review process, or copyrights. Yet it was neither global nor general, and communal forms of journal ownership and management remained significant in large geographic areas (like Latin America) and in several disciplines, especially in the humanities and the social sciences.

Development of "grassroots" open access (1990–2010)

The open access movement emerged both as a consequence of the unprecedented access afforded by online publishing and as a reaction against the large corporate model that has come to dominate scientific publishing since the Second World War and the hyper-inflation of subscription prices. [12] The early pioneers of open access electronic publishing were non-commercial and community-driven initiatives that built up on a trend of grassroot publishing innovation in the social sciences and the humanities:

In the late '80s and early '90s, a host of new journal titles launched on listservs and (later) the Web. Journals such as Postmodern Cultures, Surfaces, the Bryn Mawr Classical Review and the Public-Access Computer Systems Review were all managed by scholars and library workers rather than publishing professionals. [13]

Specialized free software for scientific publishing like Open Journal Systems became available after 2000. This development entailed a significant expansion of non-commercial open access journals by facilitating the creation and the administration of journal websites and the digital conversion of existing journals. [14] Among the journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) without an article processing charge (APC), the number of annual creation has gone from 100 by the end of the 1990s to 800 around 2010, and has not evolved significantly since then. [15]

Debates over the identity of the open access commons (2003–2012)

In the early debates over open access, the distinctions between commercial and non-commercial forms of scientific publishing and community-driven or corporate-owned structures seldom appear, possibly due to the lack of viable business model for open access. Open access publications were rather increasingly categorized into two different editorial forms: open access articles made immediately available by the publisher and pre-published articles hosted on an online archive (either as a pre-print or post-print). Starting in 2003, the ROMEO project started to devise a color-code system to better identify the policy of scientific publishers in regard to open sharing of scientific articles, from "yellow" (pre-print only) to "green" (no restriction in place): "the 'greenest' publishers are those that allow self-archiving not only of the author's accepted manuscript, but of the fully formatted and paginated publisher PDF [16] ". In 2004, Harnad et al. repurposed this classification scheme into a highly influential binary scale: articles directly made available by the publisher belong to "gold" open access (instead of "yellow") and online archives are defined as "green" open access. [17] With this breakdown of open access into "green" and "gold", there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial publishers. For Peter Suber the "gold" model embraces both journals supported by APCs or by other means of funding, as well as volunteer-run journals: "In the jargon, OA delivered by journals is called gold OA, and OA delivered by repositories is called green OA." [18]

Tom Wilson introduced the expression "Platinum Open Access" in 2007 following an heated debate with Stevan Harnad and other open access activists on the American Scientist Open Access Forum mailing list. [19] On his blog, Wilson defended the necessity of enlarging the classification of open access publishing forms as well as stressed the danger of conflating commercial and non-commercial open access journals.

[The "gold" and "green" classification] is not really the whole story and is in danger of perpetuating the myth that the only form of open access publishing is that made available through the commercial publishers, by author charging. This is why I distinguish between open access through author charging, which is what the Gold Route is usually promoted as being (…) and the Platinum Route of open access publishing which is free, open access to the publications and no author charges. In other words the Platinum Route is open at both ends of the process: submission and access, where as the Gold Route is seen as open only at the access end. [20]

The term "diamond open access" was coined later in 2012 by Marie Farge, a French mathematician and physicist and open access activist. [21] Farge was involved in the Cost of Knowledge campaign led by Timothy Gowers against the excessive cost of scientific publishing. The reference to "diamond" was a hyperbolic pun on the "gold" metaphor that aims to suggest that non-commercial/free model were ultimately the best: "I have proposed to call this third way 'Diamond OA' by outbidding the 'Gold OA' terminology chosen by the publishers [22] ". "Free OA" was also contemplated as an alternative name. [23]

The Forum of Mathematics , an open access journals co-created by Timothy Gowers, was the first publication to explicitly claim to be a diamond journal: "For the first three years of the journal, Cambridge University Press will waive the publication charges. So for three years the journal will be what Marie Farge (who has worked very hard for a more rational publication system) likes to call diamond open access, a quasi-miraculous model where neither author nor reader pays anything". [24]

Defining the diamond model (2012–…)

Cover of the OA Diamond Study (2021) Cover OA Diamond Study.jpg
Cover of the OA Diamond Study (2021)

In 2013, Fuchs and Sandoval published one of the first systematic definition of diamond open access: "Diamond open access Model, not-for-profit, non-commercial organizations, associations or networks publish material that is made available online in digital format, is free of charge for readers and authors and does not allow commercial and for-profit re-use." [25] This definition is associated to a controversial stance against the leading definition of gold open access: "We argue for differentiating the concept of Gold Open Access Publishing because Suber and others mesh together qualitatively different models, i.e. for-profit and not-for-profit ones, into the same category, whereas others, especially policy makers, simply forget or exclude not-for-profit models that do not use author fees or reader fees. [25] " The debate over the relationship between "diamond" or "platinum" open access publications with "Gold" open access has never settled and remains a point of contention in 2021, even after the publication of the OA Diamond Study. [26] While valuing the study, Martin Paul Eve still consider diamond open access as a "category error". [27]

Since 2013, the theoretical literature on the diamond model has been increasingly influenced by the institutional analysis of the commons. [28] [29] [30] Consequently, the "Open access commons" has recently emerged has an alternative label, although it is less used in a descriptive way and more as a programmatic ideal for the future of non-commercial open access. [31] [32] The conclusion of the OA Diamond study calls for the realization of The OA Commons as "a diverse, thriving, innovative and more interconnected and collaborative OA diamond journal ecosystem that supports bibliodiversity and serves many languages, cultures and domains in the future.". [33] Similarly, Janneke Adema and Samuel Moore have proposed to "redefine the future of scholarly publishing in communal settings" through a "scaling small" that ensure the preservation and development of diverse editorial models. [34]

Analysis of the diamond model has been significantly deepened by the commission of large scale empirical studies such as the OA Cooperative Study (2016) by the Public Knowledge Project or the OA Diamond Study (2021) by the cOAlition S. Noteworthy, the 2021 study found: [35]

  1. the number of Diamond OA journals is very large (>29,000), but only ca. a third of them registered in DOAJ, and only ca. 5% are indexed in either Scopus or Web of Science. Over half of these Diamond OA journals publish 25 articles per year or fewer.
  2. Between 2017 and 2019 paid-access journals published ca. 80% of all articles, paid-OA journals published ca. 11% and Diamond OA published ca. 9%.
  3. The share of Diamond OA publications among all OA journal articles peaked in 2018 and has been declining since.
  4. Only 4.3% of Diamond OA journals are fully compliant with all Plan S criteria.
  5. Only 55% of Diamond OA journals provide DOI numbers for their articles.
  6. Only 25% of the Diamond OA journals provide their content as XML or HTML (in addition to pdf).
  7. Only ca. half of the Diamond OA journals provide download statistics for their content.
  8. 2/3 of the Diamond OA journals use double-blind peer review, which is higher than for subscription journals, that prefer single-blind peer review.
  9. 25% of the Diamond OA journals operated at a loss, and just over 40% reported breaking even. The rest did not know their financial status.
  10. Although all Diamond OA journals rely heavily on volunteer work, they have some revenue sources, such as grants, collectively-organised funding, donations, shared infrastructure, membership fees, freemium services, etc.
  11. 70% of Diamond OA journals declared their operating cost less than $/€10,000 per year. Au contraire, before its cancellation of Elsevier's subscription in 2012, Harvard alone paid 40 k$/year for just one (the most expensive) Elsevier's journal. [36]
  12. The most challenging area for OA diamond journals is indexation and content visibility in the main research databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science and SciFinder.

Distribution

Creation date of diamond journals according to DOAJ data. The drop at the end is due to the lag of registration process to the DOAJ. Creation date of diamond journals.jpg
Creation date of diamond journals according to DOAJ data. The drop at the end is due to the lag of registration process to the DOAJ.

The OA Diamond Study gives an estimation of >29,000 diamond open access journals in 2021 which represent a significant share of the total number of scholarly journals. [37] Diamond journals make up for 73% of the open access journals registered on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) with 10,194 entries out of 14,020 in September 2020. [37] In 2013, Fuchs and Sandoval already noted that, as a far as the number of individual journals is concerned, diamond open access is the main form of open access publishing: "Diamond open access is not just an idea, but rather, as the empirical data provided in this paper shows, the dominant reality of open access." [25]

While the diamond model is prevalent among open access journals when looking at the journal titles, this is not the case when looking at the aggregated number of articles, as they publish less articles overall. The OA Diamond Study finds that the 10,194 journals without publication fees registered on the Directory of Open Access Journals published 356,000 articles (8–9% of all scholarly articles) per year from 2017 to 2019 instead of 453,000 articles (10–11%) published by 3,919 commercial journals with APCs. [15] This discrepancy can be mostly attributed to a consistently lower output of diamond open access journal in comparison with commercial journals: "In DOAJ we find that the majority of OA diamond journals (54.4%) publish 24 or fewer articles per year; only 33.4% of APC-based journals have a similar size." [38] Diamond journals also have a more diverse editorial production, which includes other forms of scholarly productions like book reviews or editorials, which may contribute to decreasing their share in the total number of research articles. [15]

From 2014 to 2019, the output of diamond open access journal has continued to grow in absolute terms, but has decreased relatively to the output of commercial open access journals. [39] The period showed a significant development of APC-based large publisher as well as an increasing conversion of legacy subscription-based publishers to the commercial open access model.

Any estimation of the number of diamond journals or articles is challenging as most non-commercial or community-run journals do not identify as diamond journals and this definition has to be deduced or reconstructed from the lack of APC or any other commercial activity. [37] Additionally, diamond journals more frequently struggle to be registered in academic indexes and remain largely uncharted. [40]

Geographic distribution

World distribution of diamond journals in the OA Diamond Study World distribution of diamond journals.jpg
World distribution of diamond journals in the OA Diamond Study

The majority of diamond open access journals are published in Latin America (around 25%) and Europe (around 45%). [41] In relative terms, the diamond model is especially prevalent in Latin America, with 95% of open access journals registered in DOAJ, and in Eastern Europe (81%). In contrast with Western European and North American countries, the open access movement in Latin America was largely structured around publicly supported platforms like Redalyc, or Scielo rather than APC-based publishers:

The Latin American region, as a result, owns an ecosystem characterized by the fact that "publishing" is conceived as acts of "making public", of "sharing", rather than the activity of a profit-driven publishing industry (...) Latin American academic journals are led, owned and financed by academic institutions. It is uncommon to outsource editorial processes. [42]

The OA Diamond Study accounts these separated developments to the presence or the lack of large privately owned publishers, stating that "Most major, large commercial publishers are based in Western Europe or US/Canada, which explains some of the relative dominance of the APC-model in these regions. Without these publishers, Western Europe and US/Canada would be more similar to other regions." [41] Latin American journals have long been neglected in the main commercial indexes, which may have encouraged the development of local initiatives. [43]

The diamond model has come to embody an ideal of social justice and cultural diversity in emerging and developing countries. [44] [45] Diamond open access journals are more likely to be multilingual (38%): "while English is the most common language [...] Spanish, Portuguese and French play a much more important role for OA diamond journals than for APC-based ones. Generally, this holds for most languages other than English." [46]

Disciplines

While diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, they are more prevalent in the humanities and social science. The OA Diamond Study finds that, among the journals registered on the DOAJ, humanities and social science publications make up 60% of diamond open access journals and only 23.9% of APC-based journals. [47] This distribution may be due to the differentiated evolution of scientific publishing during the 20th century, as "small HSS journals are often owned by universities and societies who often prefer OA diamond models, while many big science and medicine journals are owned by commercial publishers, more inclined to use APC models." [48]

The diamond model remain attested in various disciplines, with 22.2% of diamond journals in STEM and 17.1% in Medicine. Medical diamond journals are often embedded in local communities, especially in non-western countries: "It becomes apparent that local diamond OA journals are not only important in HSS, but also in medicine." [49]

An additional survey led by the OA Diamond Survey on 1,619 diamond OA journals highlights a more complex disciplinary distribution: although the social sciences (27.2%) and the humanities (19.2%) are well represented, more than a quarter of the respondents did not favor one discipline in particular (15.1% for multidisciplinary and 12% for "other").

Organization and economics

Most diamond open access journals are managed by academic institutions, communities or platforms: "The majority of journals (42%) are owned by universities. The main alternatives are learned societies (14%) and, to a lesser extent, government agencies, university presses and individuals." [50] This integration ensure the autonomy of the journals: they "are inherently independent from commercial publishers as they are not created by them and do not rely on them at the management level." [51] The OA Diamond Study introduced a taxonomy of 6 types of diamond OA journals that is strongly associated to their ownership status: institutional journal, learned-society journal, volunteer-run journal, publisher journal, platform journal and large journal. [52]

The main sources of support for diamond OA journals are non-monetary: in-kind support from research institutions (such as hosting and software maintenance or copy-editing services) and voluntary contributions. [53] Grant funding is significantly less mentioned, possibly as it does not always ensure a regular source of support. [54] Since the 1990s, shared platforms have become important intermediary actors for diamond journals, especially in Latin America (Redalyc, AmeliCA, ScIELO, Ariadna Ediciones) and some European countries like France (OpenEdition Journals, via Lodel [55] ), or the Netherlands, [56] Finland, [57] Croatia, [58] and Denmark [59] (all via PKP's Open Journal System). [60] As the core definition of the diamond model is focused on the lack of APC charges, a few diamond journals (less than 5–10% of the respondents of the OA DiamondSurvey) maintain commercial activities by charging for services or additional features (freemium). [54]

Share of journals surveyed by the OA Diamond Study that fall in a specific range of annual costs (i.e. 26% of the respondents have an annual costs between $1-$1000) Cost distribution of diamond journals.jpg
Share of journals surveyed by the OA Diamond Study that fall in a specific range of annual costs (i.e. 26% of the respondents have an annual costs between $1–$1000)

Running costs of diamond journals are low: half of the 1,600 journals surveyed by the OA Diamond Study "reported costs lower than 1000$/€" per year. [61] The median cost per articles is around $200, which is significantly lower than the standard prices of article processing charges in commercial open access journals. [62] Theses low costs can be accounted by institutional support, limited expenses and reliance on volunteer work: 60% of the journals surveyed in the OA Diamond Study were at least partly run by volunteers. [63] The governance model has a direct impact on the economic model of diamond open access journals. Journals embedded in an academic institution are more like to benefit from direct funding or support whereas "journals owned by learned societies rely significantly more on membership fees". [50] Nevertheless, base on the German diverse landscape example, a significant part of journals still lack funding for their basic operations. [64] Finally, contrary to APC-based journals, research funding organizations currently do not support diamond OA journals through their grants or otherwise, though proposals of direct funding mechanisms are available. [65]

Issues and perspectives

Apparent limitations of focus

Although the introductory definition points to diamond open access as referring to "texts (such as books and scientific journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to both readers and authors", a conceptual narrowing of focus in recent discussions can be perceived that practically limits the definition's scope to mostly refer to journals.

While this narrowing of conceptual focus might be due to pragmatic reasons, as a concept, diamond open access is a format-agnostic concept that can include all research outputs, from journals to the long form (book chapters, monographs) that play an important role in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Preservation

Long-term preservation is essential for all scholarly publications and under observation for diamond open access journals. Results from a survey presented in the OA Diamond Journals Study indicate that 57% of the journals "state that, to the best of their knowledge, they have no preservation policy in place". [66] While the libraries have an incentive to preserve articles published by subscription-based journals to make sure the investment has not been lost, there is no similar motivation for free online content: "Efforts around preservation and continued access are often aimed at securing postcancellation access to subscription journals." [67]

Efforts are underway to solve this issue, such as Project JASPER, [68] an ongoing project of the Directory of Open Access Journals, CLOCKSS, the Internet Archive, the KEEPERS Registry, and PKP-PN, as well as the automated preservation of published articles in LOCKSS when Open Journal Systems (OJS) is used. [69] 60% of the diamond open access surveyed in the OA Diamond Journals Study use this open source software application for managing and publishing their diamond open access journals. [70]

Recognition

While they make up for a large share of open access publications, diamond open access journals have long been overlooked by scientific policies and funding mechanisms:

This reality is however not enough acknowledged and taken into account in the open access journal debate. There is a danger that Diamond open access publishers' interests are overlooked and that a corporate model of OA will shape the future of academia. We therefore argue for a shift in the debate and that policy makers should take the Diamond Model serious by providing support for it. [25]

The launch of the cOAlition-S initiative in 2018 made the recognition issue of diamond journals more pressing. [29] Support to open access publishing would now be conditioned on the adherence of a series of editorial and economic standards which Diamond journals may struggle to conform to, given their limited means. The OA Diamond Study was commissioned in 2020 by the cOAlition-S. In its final recommendation, the study calls to fully integrate Diamond journals into the plan-S strategy:

Some journals argue that research funders have the responsibility to support or even favour OA diamond journals since they are often excluded from discussions on funding OA. While, the Plan S Principle 5 states that "the Funders support the diversity of business models for Open Access journals and platforms", perceptions will change once funders focus on OA diamond in addition to Gold OA and legacy publishing. This action has a significant potential to cover existing gaps in OA publishing. [71]

In 2020 and 2021, the institutional recognition of the diamond model has significantly progressed with unprecedented commitments from national and international organizations. The 2021 UNESCO recommendation for Open Science calls for "supporting not-for-profit, académie and scientific community-driven publishing models as a common good". [72] The second French Plan for Open Science encouraged a "diversification of economic models" that especially highlight the diamond model as it should enable "a transition from subscription towards open access with no publishing fees". [73] In March 2022, an Action Plan for Diamond Open Access has been published with the support of the cOAlition S, Science Europe, OPERAS and the French National Research Agency. [74] It aims to "expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond scholarly communication ecosystem." [75]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic publishing</span> Subfield of publishing distributing academic research and scholarship

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or theses. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open access</span> Research publications distributed freely online

Open access (OA) is a set of principles and a range of practices through which nominally copyrightable publications are delivered to readers free of access charges or other barriers. With open access strictly defined, or libre open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for copyright, which regulates post-publication uses of the work.

Libertas Academica (LA) is an open access academic journal publisher specializing in the biological sciences and clinical medicine. It was acquired by SAGE Publications in September 2016.

A hybrid open-access journal is a subscription journal in which some of the articles are open access. This status typically requires the payment of a publication fee to the publisher in order to publish an article open access, in addition to the continued payment of subscriptions to access all other content. Strictly speaking, the term "hybrid open-access journal" is incorrect, possibly misleading, as using the same logic such journals could also be called "hybrid subscription journals". Simply using the term "hybrid access journal" is accurate.

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality. As of December 2014, it offered 244 English-language open-access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicine.

Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing. Since the rise of the Internet, people have organized campaigns to change the relationships among and between academic authors, their traditional distributors and their readership. Most of the discussion has centered on taking advantage of benefits offered by the Internet's capacity for widespread distribution of reading material.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predatory publishing</span> Fraudulent business model for scientific publications

Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer review process, is highly non-transparent, and often utilizes aggressive solicitation practices.

Beall's List was a prominent list of predatory open-access publishers that was maintained by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access. The list aimed to document open-access publishers who did not perform real peer review, effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the article processing charge. Originally started as a personal endeavor in 2008, Beall's List became a widely followed piece of work by the mid-2010s. The list was used by scientists to identify exploitative publishers and detect publisher spam.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Who's Afraid of Peer Review?</span> Science article by John Bohannon

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open-access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by fee-charging open access publishers. The papers, writes Bohannon, "were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers", but 60% of the journals accepted them. The article and associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access.

An article processing charge (APC), also known as a publication fee, is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors. Most commonly, it is involved in making an academic work available as open access (OA), in either a full OA journal or in a hybrid journal. This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder. Sometimes, publication fees are also involved in traditional journals or for paywalled content. Some publishers waive the fee in cases of hardship or geographic location, but this is not a widespread practice. An article processing charge does not guarantee that the author retains copyright to the work, or that it will be made available under a Creative Commons license.

An open-access monograph is a scholarly publication usually made openly available online with an open license. These books are freely accessible to the public, typically via the internet. They are part of the open access movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open access in France</span> Overview of the culture and regulation of open access in France

In France, open access to scholarly communication is relatively robust and has strong public support. Revues.org, a digital platform for social science and humanities publications, launched in 1999. Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL) began in 2001. The French National Center for Scientific Research participated in 2003 in the creation of the influential Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Publishers EDP Sciences and OpenEdition belong to the international Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

Project DEAL is a consortium-like structure spearheaded by the German Rectors' Conference, on behalf of its fellow members in the Alliance of Science Organizations in Germany and tasked with negotiating nationwide transformative open access agreements with the three largest commercial publishers of scholarly journals for the benefit of all German academic institutions, including universities, research institutes, and their libraries. Through each of these agreements, the consortium aims to secure immediate open access publication of all new research articles by authors from German institutions, permanent full-text access to the publisher's complete journal portfolio, and fair pricing for these services according to a simple cost model based on the number of articles published.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open access in Australia</span> Overview of the culture and regulation of open access in Australia

Open access (OA) to academic publications has seen extensive growth in Australia since the first open access university repository was established in 2001 and OA is a fundamental part of the scholarly publishing and research landscape in Australia. There are open access policies at the two major research funders: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Research Council (ARC) and around half of Australian Universities have an OA policy or statement. Open Access Australasia, the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) are advocates for Open Access and related issues in Australia.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018 by "cOAlition S", a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021. The "S" stands for "shock".

The Free Journal Network is an index of open access scholarly journals, specifically for those that do not charge article processing charges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SciPost</span> Nonprofit open-access publisher

SciPost is a non-profit foundation dedicated to developing, implementing and maintaining innovative forms of electronic scientific communication and publishing. It is notable for operating the scipost.org open-access scientific publishing portal.

The economics of open science describe the economic aspects of making a wide range of scientific outputs to all levels of society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subscribe to Open</span> Open access academic publishing model

Subscribe to Open (S2O) is an economic model used by peer-reviewed scholarly journals to provide readers with open access (OA) to the journal’s content, without charging costs to authors. S2O converts journals that have a traditional subscription model to open access.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Science Monitor</span> Scientific infrastructure

An Open Science Monitor or Open Access Monitor is a scientific infrastructure that aimed to assess the spread of open practices in a scientific context.

References

  1. 1 2 OA Diamond Study 2021
  2. Simard, Marc-Andre; Basson, Isabel; Hare, Madelaine; Lariviere, Vincent; Mongeon, Philippe (2024). "The open access coverage of OpenAlex, Scopus and Web of Science". arXiv: 2404.01985 [cs.DL].
  3. 1 2 Potts et al. 2017 , p. 2
  4. Tesnière 2021
  5. Fyfe et al. 2017
  6. Contat & Torny 2015
  7. Martin 2019
  8. Potts et al. 2017 , p. 14
  9. Bellis 2009
  10. Wouters 1999
  11. Andriesse 2008
  12. Suber 2012 , p. 29
  13. Moore 2020, p. 7
  14. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 93
  15. 1 2 3 OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 30
  16. Gadd & Troll Covey 2019
  17. Harnad et al. 2004
  18. Suber 2012
  19. Stevan Harnad, There is no Platinum Road, Mail posted on the American Scientist Open Access Forum on May 30th, 2007
  20. Green, Brass and Platinum - three routes to open access
  21. Mac Síthigh & Sheekey 2012 , p. 277
  22. Mail of Marie Farge to Jean Pierre Bourguignon, June 6th, 2012
  23. Mail of Marie Farge to Timothy Gowers, May 17th, 2012
  24. Gowers 2012
  25. 1 2 3 4 Fuchs & Sandoval 2013 , p. 438
  26. Aaron Tay, Why Open Access Definitions are Confusing, Musing About Librarianship, 2021
  27. Martin Paul Eve, Diamond Mining, cOAlition S, 2021
  28. Potts et al. 2017
  29. 1 2 Moore, Samuel (2019). Common Struggles: Policy-based vs. scholar-led approaches to open access in the humanities (Thesis). K. doi:10.17613/st5m-cx33.
  30. OA Diamond Study Recommendations 2021
  31. Martone & Aghazarian 2019
  32. Lockett 2021
  33. OA Diamond Study Recommendations 2021 , p. 36
  34. Adema & Moore 2021
  35. OA Diamond Study Recommendations 2021
  36. "Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices". TheGuardian.com . 24 April 2012.
  37. 1 2 3 OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 27
  38. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 36
  39. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 31
  40. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 101
  41. 1 2 OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 32
  42. Becerril-García & Aguado-López 2019
  43. Babini & Machin-Mastromatteo 2015
  44. Raju 2017
  45. Meagher 2021
  46. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 41
  47. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 34
  48. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 35
  49. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 40
  50. 1 2 OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 79
  51. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 83
  52. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 103
  53. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 117
  54. 1 2 OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 118
  55. "Lodel". 24 November 2022.
  56. https://openjournals.nl/ [ bare URL ]
  57. https://journal.fi/ [ bare URL ]
  58. "HRČAK OJS : Open access journals system".
  59. https://tidsskrift.dk/ [ bare URL ]
  60. "New Communities: Scholar-led publishing und Open Access | Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft". zfmedienwissenschaft.de (in German). Retrieved 2022-09-24.
  61. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 110
  62. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 112
  63. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 115
  64. Taubert, Niels; Sterzik, Linda; Bruns, Andre (2024-01-08). "Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape". Minerva. 62 (2): 193–227. arXiv: 2306.13080 . doi:10.1007/s11024-023-09519-7. ISSN   1573-1871.
  65. Dufour, Quentin; Pontille, David; Torny, Didier (2023-12-22). "Supporting diamond open access journals: Interest and feasibility of direct funding mechanisms". Nordic Journal of Library and Information Studies. 4 (2): 35–55. doi: 10.7146/njlis.v4i2.140344 . ISSN   2597-0593.
  66. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 96
  67. Laakso et al. 2020 , p. 3
  68. "Directory of Open Access Journals – DOAJ".
  69. "PKP Preservation Network | Public Knowledge Project".
  70. OA Diamond Study 2021 , p. 98
  71. OA Diamond Study Recommendations 2021, p. 32
  72. Draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, 2021, CL/4363
  73. Second French Plan for Open Science, 2021
  74. EUA signs Action Plan for Diamond Open Access
  75. Ancion et al. 2022 , p. 1

Bibliography

OA Diamond Study & Action Plan

Book & thesis

Articles & chapters

Conference

Other web sources