We need to rethink the way we identify diamond open access journals in quantitative science studies
Article [Accepted Manuscript]
Abstract(s)
With the announcement of several new diamond open access (OA) related initiatives and the creation of
the Global Summit on Diamond Open Access, diamond OA is now at the forefront of the OA movement.
However, while working on our recent Quantitative Science Studies publication and datasets, we noticed
that temporarily waiving article processing charges (APCs) was a commonly used strategy by big publishers
for some of their journals. In the absence of an index of diamond journals, most studies have operationalized
the identification of diamond journals as a subset of gold journals that do not charge an APC. While this is
a pragmatic approach, we fear that it could undermine the value of the research in understanding what we
believe is more commonly understood by diamond OA. This letter discusses the need for bibliometric
research to apply more nuance in how it operationalizes diamond OA beyond the absence of APCs. We
call on the publishing sector to be more transparent in the costs of publishing. Ultimately, we argue that
transparency and a long-term commitment to no-APC publishing are necessary for diamond OA to succeed,
and that the research community needs to apply this standard when seeking to understand the model.