Creating space for ‘Diamond’ open access journals in an Australian model

Creating space for ‘Diamond’ open access journals in an Australian model

Drew Pearman

Open Access (OA) to scholarly publications has been a focus of attention for scholars, academic institutions and policy makers for several decades; at least since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (BOAI 2002). Different models of OA exist, but the so-called ‘Gold’ model is most prominent (Sastron-Toledo, Alonso-Alvarez and Manana-Rodriguez 2024; Smits and Pells 2022). More advanced forms of OA—‘Diamond’ OA journals—are free for readers and authors, not-for-profit, and scholar-led with editorial and publishing services housed in universities, libraries and other institutions (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013). Despite strong support for Diamond OA, there remain significant incentives for scholars to publish in journals adopting other forms of OA (Smits and Pells 2022).

In Australia, OA policies are in place at key funding institutions (ARC 2021; NHMRC 2022), but fewer than 40 per cent of scholarly journal articles resulting from government funded research are openly accessible at present (Foley 2021; Scicluna 2024, p. 1). There is no data on the proportion of these articles that are published in Diamond OA journals.

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Cathy Foley, has proposed an ‘Australian model’ for OA academic publishing (Cassidy 2024; Foley n.d.) centred on ‘transformative agreements’ with academic publishers to pay for read access for all Australian residents and publishing fees (Article Processing Charges [APCs]) for Australian-funded scholars. The agreements would also pay for global access to read peer-reviewed articles resulting from Australian-funded research (Foley n.d. 2021).

This report considers how the proposed Australian model might facilitate or constrain opportunities for Diamond OA scholarly journals in Australia. Two international OA policy case studies—Plan S and the University of California (UC) system—are analysed to ask how an Australian model can encourage more advanced forms of OA while recognising the constraints of operating within a global system of scholarship.

Context

In 2002 the Budapest Declaration argued that the internet can enable an ‘unprecedented public good’ by pursuing openly accessible scholarly journals. The Declaration defined OA as the ‘world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it …’ (BOAI 2002). The Declaration calls on ‘interested institutions and individuals’ to open access to this literature and ‘remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way’ (BOAI 2002).

Since the Budapest Declaration, several barriers to OA have persisted. Paywalls to access scholarly journals inhibit the use of publicly funded research for innovation, public policy, public health, and knowledge dissemination (Foley 2021; Scicluna 2024; cOAlition S 2019; Else 2018; Barbour and Nicholls 2019; Barbour 2019; Borchert and Benn 2018; Productivity Commission 2023). 

Further, the concentration of ownership of scholarly journals in five for-profit publishers is said to divert funds from scholarly activities and leads to increasing costs as a result of market power (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013; Larivière, Haustein and Mongeon 2015; Scicluna 2024; Barbour and Nicholls 2019; Borchert and Benn 2018; Rooryk 2019). Lariviere (2015) notes that in 2013 the top-five academic publishers accounted for over 50 per cent of all scientific articles published globally: social sciences had the highest concentration (70 per cent of all articles), the humanities the lowest (20 per cent), and the natural and medical sciences in between (53 per cent).

Concentration of ownership exacerbates the ‘publish or perish’ environment for scholars (Borrego 2023, p. 372). Citations in highly rated journals are regarded as ‘reputational academic capital’ for scholars (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013, p. 430), which in turn enables these journals to increase charges well above costs (either subscription or APCs) and above market rates of return, increasing costs for the system as a whole (Borrego 2023; Fuchs and Sandoval 2013; Larivière, Haustein and Mongeon 2015). 

OA models

OA scholars and policy makers often distinguish OA models using colours introduced by Suber (2012). ‘Green’ OA represents the archiving of pre- or post-print articles in OA repositories (Suber 2012). In the case of pre-print articles, they may not (yet) have been subject to peer review, or in the case of post-print articles publication is usually delayed (for example by one year after publication in a journal with a paywall). Gold OA represents articles immediately published online with no charges to read but with publication costs that are covered by authors (APCs) or institutions (Suber 2012). Gold journals often take hybrid form, with openly accessible articles published alongside subscriber only articles.

Diamond OA was first defined by Fuchs and Sandoval (2013) as published material that ‘is free of charge for readers and authors and does not allow commercial and for-profit re-use’ (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013, p. 438). 

Since the Budapest Declaration, universities, research and funding institutions, as well as governments, have adopted policies to define what OA means, and to require research outputs in the form of journal articles to be openly accessible, albeit to varying extents of ambition (UC 2013; UKRI 2023; cOAlition S 2024; ARC 2021; NHMRC 2022). Publishers of journals have adapted their business models to address policy requirements and the desires of scholars for their articles to be OA (Borrego, Anglada and Abadal 2021). 

APCs require authors to pay a fee (usually drawn from grant funding) to make their articles openly accessible to readers. APCs first emerged in the early 2000s as a response by publishers to concerns about paywalls inhibiting access to scholarly articles (Borrego, Anglada and Abadal 2021). In policy, APCs were first adopted in the UK Government’s response to the Finch Report (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2012). 

APCs have led to the creation of ‘hybrid journals’, where articles paid for by authors via APCs are openly accessible and sit alongside articles available only to paid subscribers. APCs have amplified equity concerns about the ability of scholars/institutions to pay (Aguado-Lopez and Becerril-Garcia 2020; Hoogendoorn and Redvers‐Mutton 2024). 

Alternative policy approaches have also emerged that will form the focus of the case studies that follow. ‘Read and publish agreements’ effectively centralise the payment of APCs. A university (often through its library) or funding institution negotiates an agreement with publishers of a journal/s for OA: articles by its scholars in the specified journals are openly accessible to all readers; and for subscriber access to the publisher’s journals for scholars and students associated with the institution (UC n.d.).

Policies embracing a diversity of publishing models have also emerged, most notably Plan S and the adoption of ‘transformative agreements’ which seek to shift publishing business models over time from payments for reading and publishing to a service provider model (cOAlition S 2019).

The emerging ‘Australian model’

In Australia, the major public funders of research (the Australian Research Council [ARC] and the National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]) provided over A$1.6 billion in research grants in 2022-23 (Scicluna 2024, p. 5). Both councils have adopted OA policies (NHMRC 2022; ARC 2021) that rely on payment of APCs by grant recipients (Scicluna 2024; Foley 2021).

Per year, Australian universities spend an estimated A$332 million in annual subscription fees for scholarly journals, while subscriptions combined with APCs paid for by research councils cost an estimated A$460 million–$1 billion (Foley 2021, p. 14).

The ARC OA policy requires research outputs to be freely accessible within twelve months of the publication date (Green OA), but allows researchers to ‘provide reasons’ to opt out of the requirement (ARC 2021, p. 5). The ARC last reported on OA publishing for the 2013–18 period when 32 per cent of journal articles as outputs of ARC grants were openly accessible (ARC 2019). The report provides no statistics on the type of OA publishing.

The NHMRC has a stricter policy that requires all journal articles as research outputs to be immediately openly accessible (NHMRC 2022). The policy excludes hybrid journals not part of a transformative agreement (NHMRC 2022). The NHMRC does not report statistics on compliance with the policy.

Dr Cathy Foley has proposed to the Australian government an ‘Australian Model’ for OA (Cassidy 2024). While the full proposal is not publicly available, Foley has elaborated on the key elements of the model (Foley n.d. 2021). It includes a central pool of funds to negotiate ‘subscriptions and open access fees’ in the form of ‘transformative agreements’ (Foley n.d.)—essentially a national read and publish agreement. The model would enable access to a global catalogue of scholarly journals ‘for everyone residing in Australia’ and would ensure that ‘all Australian peer-reviewed journal articles [i.e. those funded by the Australian Government] are available internationally as open access’ (Foley n.d.). Foley (2021, p. 18) claims the model would be equal to or lower cost than the current approach.

In elaborating the model, Foley also highlights the important role of publishers and notes there are real costs associated with publishing and value in publishing skills (in curating, editing, organising peer-review and publishing), which contribute to the relative prestige of journals (2021, pp. 13–14).

Case studies

Two international policies have been selected as case studies: the UC Systemwide and Presidential Open Access Policies (UC 2013, 2015); and cOAlition S ‘Plan S’ (cOAlition S 2019). The case studies seek to better understand the policy choices available to Australia and some of the constraints at play in developing an Australian OA policy, with a view to understanding how policy can support Diamond OA journals.

The case studies use primary sources and focus on definitions and ethical justifications for OA, funding models, and support available for Diamond OA journals.

UC Systemwide and Presidential OA Policies

The UC system defines OA as the:

Free availability of scholarly literature on the public internet, permitting users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles for any lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers (UC 2015, s.II).

The policies use a broad ethical justification for disseminating research and scholarship ‘as widely as possible’ (UC 2015, s.I). This justification includes benefits to ‘individual scholars and to the scholarly enterprise’ from ‘greater recognition, more thorough review, consideration and critique, and a general increase in scientific, scholarly and critical knowledge’ (UC 2015, s.I 2013, Preamble). 

UC policies in effect require Green OA (including exemptions): faculty (and non-faculty) staff are required to ‘deposit a version of each scholarly article in a digital repository … [which] will be made freely and openly available to the public’ (UC 2015, s.I).

To underpin higher levels of OA, the UC negotiates read and publish agreements with publishers to fully cover (or discount) APCs and to transition from subscription fees to APCs (UC n.d.).

The UC policies use both quantitative and qualitative metrics in assessing journals for potential agreements. Quantitative metrics consider ‘the number of UC-authored publications per year’ (UC n.d.) and are therefore likely to be heavily weighted to large publishers. 

On the other hand, UC uses qualitative metrics to consider whether the agreement would ‘advance open access in the broader publishing environment’. Qualitative criteria include: 

  • the publisher’s ‘commitment to a transition to full open access’;

  • its ‘willingness to work in partnership’ with UC; and 

  • whether the agreement would set a positive precedent beyond UC, positively impacting the broader scholarly publishing system (UC n.d.).

Furthermore:

Publishers whose fiduciary mission is to advance academic research and teaching, and whose surpluses are reinvested principally in activities led by members of the academy to advance the academic mission, will receive more favorable pricing consideration in our assessments of overall value [sic] (UC n.d.).

These qualitative criteria suggest there is at least some opportunity for Diamond OA journals to justify and secure an agreement with UC, and thus receive funding to support editorial and publishing services.

Plan S

Plan S requires signatories (government funding bodies, universities and non-profit research funding organisations) to commit to a set of principles for OA, including that:

all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants … must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo (cOAlition S 2019).

For Plan S OA journals are those where ‘all peer-reviewed research articles are openly available from the point of publication’ (cOAlition S n.d.(a)). 

Plan S justifies OA by noting that ‘universality is a fundamental principle of science’ and science can ‘only function properly if research results are made openly available to the community so that they can be submitted to the test and scrutiny of other researchers’ (cOAlition S 2018).

From a funding perspective, Plan S uses ‘transformative agreements’: ‘contracts negotiated between institutions (libraries, national and regional consortia) and publishers that transform the business model underlying scholarly journal publishing’ from a subscription-based model to a service provider model (cOAlition S n.d.(b)). Plan S explicitly notes hybrid (Gold OA) models of journal publication need to be terminated by the end of 2024 (cOAlition S 2018). These hybrid models have helped to provide a transitional funding model for journal publishers, but continue to charge either authors or institutions so that articles are openly accessible. Despite the deadline of 2024, and after five years in operation, Plan S signatories continue to rely heavily on Gold OA models to comply (cOAlition S 2023, p. 3). The deadline for terminating hybrid models of OA by the end 2024 appears unlikely to be achieved.

In response to this continuing reliance on GOLD OA, cOAlition S is currently consulting on new ‘responsible publishing’ principles. The consultation outlines a vision for a ‘community-based scholarly communication system’ similar to Diamond OA (cOAlition S 2023, p. 4). The new principles, in addition to reiterating a commitment to immediate open access, imagine community-based quality control (principle 3) and a ‘sustainable’, ‘scholar-led publishing ecosystem’ (principle 5) (cOAlition S 2023, p. 5). In an apparent nod to commercial publishers, the consultation notes that ‘third-party service providers’ might facilitate quality control (i.e. peer review, curation) and publishing services (e.g. editing, typesetting, publication) (cOAlition S 2023, p. 5).

Discussion

From the case studies above, it is discernible that what is ‘open’ in OA journals depends heavily on the definitions and ethical justifications relied upon for a particular OA policy—policies, through discourse, practices and enforcement, define what is the public good or commons characteristics of OA publication.

Across the two policy case studies discussed, and across much of the literature, there is a consensus about the public good of transparency: that publicly funded research outputs in the form of journal articles should be openly accessible to read and that paywalls to access academic journals inhibit the use of publicly funded research (Foley 2021; Scicluna 2024; cOAlition S 2019; Else 2018; Barbour and Nicholls 2019; Barbour 2019; Borchert and Benn 2018; Productivity Commission 2023). 

UC’s OA policies, as a public university system, are ‘dedicated to making its scholarship available to the people of California and the world’ (UC 2013), while Plan S highlights the ‘universality’ of scientific knowledge (cOAlition S 2018) as a justification for OA. What we know of the proposed Australian model also uses similar justification, noting that OA will enable Australia to ‘use, and increase the benefits from, Australia’s existing expenditure on academic subscriptions and publishing’ (Foley n.d.). 

Narrow justifications for OA suggest scholarly publishing is a form of ‘social testimony’ (O’Connor, Goldberg and Goldman 2024). The authority of a journal, and the scholars and editors that contribute to it, serve as justification for acceptance of research outcomes by a wider audience. This form of testimony requires OA for the testimony to be understood and shared. However, transparency justifications for OA in policy often rest on limited instrumental foundations, where a top-down logic of markets legitimises certain forms of knowledge (Ottina 2013) (e.g. those that produce narrowly productive outcomes), rather than recognising the full epistemic diversity and value of scholarship itself.

A broader ethical justification recognises the benefits of OA for the practice of scholarship in and of itself, as means of creating knowledge. In this justification, ‘epistemic peers’ (O’Connor, Goldberg and Goldman 2024) challenge, debate and, where possible, develop consensus. In this sense, Diamond OA sees scholarly publishing itself as:

a form of non-profit academic publishing that makes academic knowledge a common good, reclaims the common character of the academic system and entails the possibility of fostering job security by creating public service publishing jobs (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013, p. 428).

The case studies above embrace some of these concepts in discourse. In its responsible publishing consultation, cOAlition S seeks to create a ‘community-based scholarly communication system’ (cOAlition S 2023, p. 4) and UC promotes agreements with publishers that ‘advance the academic mission’ (UC 2013). In practice, there are also opportunities to seek support for Diamond OA. Plan S calls on signatories to ‘provide incentives to establish and support’ high quality OA journals (cOAlition S 2019), and UC uses qualitative criteria in reaching agreements with publishers for similar purpose (UC n.d.). The Australian model also acknowledges the impacts of transformative agreements on ‘small, subject-specific Australian publishers’ but to date proposes no explicit measures to support these publishers (Foley n.d.).

Yet both the case studies and what we know of the Australian model do not fully embrace this wider justification for OA: they place large-scale agreements with existing commercial publishers at the forefront, with efforts to support Diamond OA as supplementary. Because of this there continues to be a ‘danger’ that in each of these policy models ‘Diamond OA publishers’ interests are overlooked and that a corporate model of OA will shape the future of academia’ (Fuchs and Sandoval 2013, p. 438). This is in contrast to the system in Latin America where Diamond OA has long operated with direct public investments in non-profit scholarly publishers (Aguado-Lopez and Becerril-Garcia 2020, 2019). 

Conclusion

For policy makers in Australia, the discussion above raises several challenges. Is it possible to design OA policies which balance the entrenched scale and centrality of the existing commercial publishers, with a desire to encourage a scholar-led system embracing Diamond OA? The Plan S and UC case studies suggest policies need to very actively support Diamond OA if a more advanced form of OA is to emerge.

Ottina (2013) notes the only threat to the dominant publishers would be to remove barriers ‘that give incumbents the market power to sustain outsized margins’ (Ottina 2013, pp. 607–608). Transformative and read and publish agreements seem poorly placed to achieve this goal, as they maintain the market power of the dominant publishers and explicitly commit to continuing funding for them. 

What we know of the Australian model emphasises cost-neutrality for government (Foley n.d. 2021) and in doing so effectively guarantees minimum revenue levels for dominant publishers. In practice, under Plan S and the UC policies, costs (for APCs) have continued to increase (Borrego 2023).

More research is needed to consider policy measures to eliminate some of the barriers that maintain this dominance. Reducing the importance of citations in highly ranked journals as a means of career progress for scholars, is one policy measure that can assist in addressing concentration (Scicluna 2024; cOAlition S 2023). 

Broader measures that generate competitive tension in the funding of scholarly publishing could have a larger effect and should form the focus of further research. Research should consider how policy measures could create genuine uncertainty for publishers, not about the total level of funding available for scholarly publication, but about where the funding will be allocated, so that Diamond OA journals published and edited in universities and not-for-profit organisations can genuinely threaten the status and funding available to the dominant publishers.

In the meantime, scholars, universities and institutions need to demand space to practice advanced forms of OA. Hall (2011) argues this requires ‘performative action’ to create a culture supportive of scholar-led OA and a willingness to accept failure. Universities through libraries and publishing services can invest in infrastructure and editorial services that support OA and recognise contributions to Diamond OA Journals in recruitment and advancement decisions (Ottina 2013, p. 612; Arthur et al. 2021). Many examples of these practices exist already (e.g. OA Australasia n.d.; Open Humanities Press n.d.), and further research could focus on which publishing models and practices work in practice in Australia.

 

Drew Pearman (he/him) is an editor and writer with diverse interests including climate change, architecture and design, the outdoors and music. He is based in Melbourne.

 
 
Bound 2024 essays
AdobeStock_480917824.jpeg
A study on diversity initiatives within publishing industry positions
Read More →
AdobeStock_509301858.jpeg
What factors are shifting the perception of romance fiction and aiding in diminishing the societal stigma surrounding the genre?
Read More →
AdobeStock_525966484.jpeg
Are we seeking too much truth in fiction? Examining the exploitation of authors’ identities when publishing fiction containing representations of marginalised communities
Read More →
AdobeStock_506581960.jpeg
Why manga can fill the demand for LGBTQIA+ representation for young Australian readers
Read More →
AdobeStock_333916592.jpeg
Independent bookstores diversifying Australia’s bookshelves and readers
Read More →
AdobeStock_503632453.jpeg
Children’s literature and the ban on diversity
Read More →
AdobeStock_518239196.jpeg
One book (doesn’t) fit all: Suggestions for more dyslexia-friendly print books
Read More →
AdobeStock_518239207.jpeg
Editing hard truths: In consideration of a trauma-informed publishing industry framework
Read More →
AdobeStock_518239200.jpeg
Barriers faced by marginalised writers within the publishing process
Read More →
AdobeStock_487396994.jpeg
Audiobooks: A new form of reading comprehension

erin byers x

Read More →
AdobeStock_521939383.jpeg
BookTok: Marketing literature to a new generation of readers
Read More →
AdobeStock_526706476.jpeg
Reckless acquiescence: Authors and piracy in the age of AI
Read More →
AdobeStock_521939376.jpeg
Creating space for ‘Diamond’ open access journals in an Australian model
Read More →
environmental?.jpeg
An evaluation of sustainability practices in publishing and the nuances of carbon-neutrality
Read More →
AdobeStock_502193623.jpeg
How does soft censorship impact the publishing industry and should Australia be worried?
Read More →
TechnologyGideon DaleyTechnology