Choosing the right open access model - Featured

Choosing the Right Open Access Model: A Practical Approach for Publishers

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Open access publishing has become one of the most transformative developments in academic publishing over the past two decades. As the pressure to democratize knowledge and remove paywalls intensifies, publishers are compelled to reassess their business models and consider various open access models. For journal and academic publishers, this shift is both a challenge and an opportunity—an invitation to reimagine how we distribute and fund scholarly content while maintaining editorial quality, sustainability, and global reach.

Choosing the right open access model isn’t as simple as picking from a menu. It requires a nuanced understanding of the publishing ecosystem, financial structures, author needs, disciplinary differences, and institutional goals. This article serves as a strategic guide for academic and journal publishers navigating the complex open-access terrain. 

Understanding the Spectrum of Open Access Models

Before choosing the right model, we need to understand the primary categories of open access. At one end of the spectrum, you have Gold Open Access, where articles are freely available immediately upon publication, usually with Article Processing Charges (APCs) paid by authors or institutions. Then there’s Green Open Access, a model based on self-archiving—authors deposit preprints or postprints in repositories, while the publisher retains rights to the final version. Hybrid Open Access sits somewhere in between, allowing authors to pay for open access in subscription-based journals.

Beyond these well-known models, there’s also Diamond (or Platinum) Open Access, where both reading and publishing are free, funded by institutions, consortia, or grants. Each model offers distinct advantages and complications, depending on your goals and resources.

While these definitions may sound straightforward, each model has sub-variations and legal, financial, and reputational implications that must be considered. Therefore, choosing the right model isn’t a technical task; it’s a strategic decision that must align with your publishing mission.

Gold Open Access: Visibility at a Cost

Gold Open Access is perhaps the most widely recognized open access model, partly because major commercial publishers have adopted it. In this model, the journal makes articles immediately available to readers without paywalls. The publishing costs are typically covered through APCs paid by authors, their institutions, or funding bodies.

The main advantage of Gold OA is visibility. Articles are indexed quickly and discoverable without restrictions, increasing the potential for citations and global readership. This aligns with the mission of many academic publishers to disseminate knowledge widely and equitably. Additionally, journals that operate under Gold OA tend to be viewed as more progressive and aligned with research funder mandates, such as those from Plan S signatories.

However, the model is not without its critics. APCs can be prohibitively costly, especially for researchers from low-income regions or institutions without strong OA funding frameworks. This introduces a potential inequity—those who can pay get published, while others are sidelined. For publishers, reliance on APCs also creates a new kind of financial vulnerability: revenue is directly tied to article submissions, which can fluctuate due to academic calendars, global crises, or shifting institutional priorities.

Therefore, for a publisher considering Gold OA, the key question is whether the model’s promise of access and prestige outweighs its risks of revenue instability and potential author exclusion. Transparent pricing, APC waivers, and strong partnerships with funders can help mitigate these concerns.

Green Open Access: Flexibility with Limits

Green Open Access offers a low-cost entry into the OA ecosystem, particularly for publishers hesitant to change how they make money. Under this approach, authors can deposit a version of their manuscript—usually the preprint or the accepted manuscript—in institutional or subject repositories. This deposit can occur immediately or after an embargo period, depending on the publisher’s policy.

From a publisher’s perspective, Green OA is appealing because it preserves the traditional subscription or pay-per-view revenue while offering a form of open dissemination. It also fosters goodwill among authors who want their research to be accessible without incurring APCs. For journals with a long history and extensive back issues, Green OA allows gradual integration into the OA ecosystem without immediate disruption.

However, Green OA is far from perfect. The version of the manuscript available in repositories is not the final, formatted version, which may confuse readers or affect the perceived quality of the journal. There’s also the issue of compliance and version control—many authors struggle to understand which version they can legally share, and when. For publishers, the enforcement of embargoes and repository policies becomes a time-consuming administrative burden.

In choosing Green OA, publishers should invest in clear communication strategies and tools that help authors navigate self-archiving rules. Moreover, combining Green OA with progressive licensing, such as Creative Commons, can make it a more robust and attractive offering.

Hybrid Open Access: A Transitional Path or a Dead End?

Hybrid Open Access allows individual articles within subscription-based journals to be made OA if the author or funder pays an APC. On paper, this model seems like the best of both worlds: publishers retain their subscription revenues while giving authors the option to publish OA.

Yet, the hybrid model is increasingly under scrutiny. Critics argue that it leads to “double dipping”—publishers charging both subscriptions and APCs for the same content. While some publishers have implemented offsetting agreements to balance this, many institutions remain wary. Furthermore, Plan S and similar mandates have declared hybrid OA ineligible unless the journal is on a path toward full OA transformation.

Choosing the right open access model - Research

From a strategic standpoint, hybrid OA may be viable for large publishers with extensive journal portfolios and transitional agreements with libraries or consortia. But for smaller academic publishers, it risks being a bureaucratic detour—complicated to manage and unlikely to meet long-term OA expectations from funders and academics.

If you are a publisher considering hybrid OA, it should be viewed as a stepping stone, not a destination. Transparent accounting, clear timelines for transformation, and engagement with library partners are essential to making it work ethically and effectively.

Diamond Open Access: Equity-Focused but Resource-Intensive

Diamond Open Access has gained popularity among university presses, scholarly societies, and mission-driven publishers. In this model, both readers and authors incur no charges. Instead, funding comes from institutional support, government grants, or community contributions. It’s arguably the most equitable model in terms of access and participation.

The strengths of Diamond OA lie in its alignment with academic values—removing financial barriers for authors, supporting less commercial or niche research areas, and emphasizing community ownership of knowledge. It also allows publishers to retain editorial independence and build deeper trust with academic communities.

That said, sustainability is a major challenge. Without APC revenue, Diamond OA journals must secure reliable long-term funding. This often means writing grant proposals, forging institutional partnerships, or leveraging volunteer labor—a strategy that may not be scalable or stable in the long run. Infrastructure needs also grow with time, including costs for DOI registration, XML conversion, hosting, archiving, and discoverability.

Publishers exploring this route should build a strong case for institutional support, explore collaborative models like consortia, and invest in efficient journal publishing workflow to keep costs manageable. When done right, Diamond OA can be a powerful expression of the values many academic publishers hold dear.

Other Emerging Models: Subscribe to Open and Cooperative Publishing

Beyond the standard four models, several innovative approaches are gaining traction. Subscribe to Open (S2O), for instance, maintains subscriptions but flips a journal to OA if enough institutions continue subscribing. This model rewards community solidarity and avoids APCs, but hinges on consistent library engagement and transparency.

Another approach is cooperative publishing, where academic communities co-own the publishing infrastructure. Think of it as scholarly crowdfunding meets academic governance. Examples include community-owned platforms and overlay journals that leverage preprint servers.

These models are promising but not yet widespread. They demand a rethinking of value creation, shared responsibility, and stakeholder buy-in. For adventurous publishers with strong networks and visionary leadership, these models offer new ways to ensure sustainability without commercial dependency.

Strategic Considerations for Choosing a Model

No OA model exists in a vacuum. The right choice for one publisher may be entirely wrong for another. Therefore, strategic considerations must guide the decision:

  1. Funding and Revenue. What are your primary revenue sources? Can you afford to forgo APCs or subscriptions? Do you have access to institutional or grant-based support? The financial realities should anchor your choice.
  2. Disciplinary Norms. Different academic fields have different OA cultures. In biomedical sciences, APCs are common and often covered by funders. In the humanities, budgets are tighter, and OA support is minimal. Your model must reflect the habits and expectations of your authors.
  3. Editorial Independence: Some OA models may require alignment with funder mandates or third-party platforms. If maintaining editorial control is critical, this could affect your choice.
  4. Infrastructure and Capacity: Do you have the technology and human resources to manage OA workflows, track APCs, and ensure long-term archiving and indexing? Lean operations may find Green or Diamond OA more manageable.
  5. Brand and Mission Alignment: Your model should reflect your organization’s values. Are you prioritizing equity, sustainability, visibility, or community engagement? Choose the model that best fits your identity and long-term goals.

How to Transition: Planning for Change

Shifting to an OA model isn’t just a policy change; it’s an organizational transformation. Publishers must plan carefully and consult widely. A phased transition can ease stakeholder anxiety, allow for financial modeling, and give time to test new workflows. Communication is key—both internally with your editorial teams and externally with authors, funders, and readers.

Some journals choose to experiment with a single OA title before rolling out a broader strategy. Others initiate pilot projects with partners or funders. Data collection and feedback loops are vital to refining your approach.

Tools such as the Open Access Spectrum Evaluation Tool and SPARC’s OA Program Guide can help in assessing readiness and charting a roadmap. You don’t need to leap blindly into OA, but standing still is no longer an option.

Conclusion

The future of academic publishing is undeniably open, but there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to getting there. The choice of an open access model must be deliberate, informed, and aligned with your publishing vision and operational reality. Gold OA promises visibility, but at a financial cost. Green OA offers flexibility, yet may confuse authors. Hybrid OA may work temporarily, but it invites criticism. Diamond OA champions equity, though it demands stable funding. And emerging models like Subscribe to Open introduce innovative pathways worth exploring.

Academic and journal publishers must weigh their options thoughtfully, experiment strategically, and stay responsive to changes in funder policies, author expectations, and technological developments. More than anything, the decision about which OA model to adopt should reflect a publisher’s core mission: to advance scholarship, serve researchers, and disseminate knowledge as widely and fairly as possible.

Leave a comment