Diamond open access vs Plan S - Featured

Diamond Open Access vs. Plan S: Which is the Better Model?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

The open access (OA) movement has dramatically shifted the academic publishing landscape over the past two decades. With the rise of digital publishing and a growing demand for equitable access to publicly funded research, two influential models have emerged in global conversations: Diamond Open Access and Plan S. Each represents a different philosophy and funding mechanism for how knowledge should be disseminated in the scholarly ecosystem.

While both models aim to remove paywalls and democratize access to scholarly literature, they diverge sharply in how they assign costs and responsibilities among stakeholders—researchers, publishers, funders, and institutions. Plan S is driven by funder mandates and focuses on compliance, transparency, and accelerated transition, while Diamond Open Access relies on a more community-led, subsidy-based approach that avoids charging authors or readers. Each has its strengths, limitations, and implications for the future of publishing.

This write-up examines both models in depth, exploring their principles, sustainability, scalability, global equity, and long-term viability. Our aim is to weigh the two not in a binary fashion but with a nuanced perspective on which model better supports the academic publishing ecosystem at large.

Understanding Plan S

Plan S was launched in 2018 by cOAlition S, a consortium of national research funders, philanthropic organizations, and international partners committed to accelerating the transition to full and immediate open access (OA). Its foundational principle mandates that all scholarly publications arising from publicly funded research must be published in compliant OA journals or platforms, ensuring immediate, barrier-free access without embargoes. 

Beyond this core requirement, Plan S enforces a comprehensive framework of technical and policy standards designed to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable reuse of research outputs.

Central to Plan S is an accountability-driven approach. Researchers receiving funding from cOAlition S members must publish in venues that meet stringent criteria, including:

  • Mandatory use of liberal reuse licenses, typically Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY), to maximize dissemination and adaptation.
  • Full transparency of Article Processing Charges (APCs) to prevent hidden costs and promote fair pricing.
  • Adherence to high-quality metadata standards to improve discoverability and interoperability. The policy explicitly excludes hybrid journals (unless they commit to a transformative agreement) and prioritizes fully OA venues. While Plan S supports repository-based sharing (“green OA”), it requires immediate deposit and open licensing, discouraging delayed or restricted access.

Despite its ambitious goals, Plan S has drawn criticism for its perceived rigidity and unintended consequences. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences, where funding for APCs is scarce, argue that the policy disproportionately favors STEM disciplines with well-established OA funding mechanisms. 

Similarly, researchers in the Global South highlight how the reliance on APC-funded “gold” OA exacerbates systemic inequities, as institutions in low- and middle-income countries often lack the resources to cover publication fees. 

Although Plan S includes provisions for transformative agreements and repository-based publishing, critics contend that its compliance-centric framework fails to adequately address disparities in research infrastructure and economic capacity. Some also question whether the plan’s top-down implementation risks marginalizing community-driven OA initiatives that prioritize affordability and inclusivity over rigid policy alignment.

The Philosophy and Structure of Diamond Open Access

Diamond Open Access (also referred to as Platinum Open Access) presents a transformative alternative to traditional and APC-driven open access models. Unlike gold OA, which relies on author-facing fees, Diamond OA eliminates financial barriers for both readers and authors by relying on institutional subsidies, research grants, volunteer contributions, or collaborative consortia. This approach is particularly prevalent among university presses, academic societies, and mission-driven independent publishers, which often prioritize scholarly integrity over commercial viability.

At its core, Diamond OA resonates with the academic community’s ethos that knowledge production should function as a public good rather than a revenue-generating enterprise. Many Diamond OA journals operate on a nonprofit basis, deeply embedded within their academic ecosystems, with editorial boards and reviewers frequently contributing unpaid labor out of disciplinary commitment. This community-driven model fosters a strong alignment between publishers and scholars, ensuring that editorial decisions prioritize rigor, relevance, and accessibility over market pressures or profit motives.

A defining strength of Diamond OA is its inclusivity. By removing both paywalls and APCs, it creates a more equitable publishing landscape—particularly for:

  • Researchers in the Global South, where institutional funding for APCs is scarce.
  • Early-career scholars and independent researchers without access to grants.
  • Disciplines like the humanities and social sciences, which often lack dedicated OA funding streams.

Additionally, Diamond OA journals frequently maintain strong editorial independence, free from the influence of corporate publishers or revenue-driven incentives. This allows them to champion niche fields, experimental formats, and critical scholarship that might otherwise struggle in profit-oriented systems.

Despite its ethical appeal, Diamond OA faces significant structural hurdles. Without subscription fees or APCs, many journals depend on precarious funding—such as short-term grants or institutional goodwill—raising concerns about long-term viability. Other persistent challenges include:

  • Limited infrastructure: Many Diamond OA initiatives lack dedicated staffing, advanced publishing platforms, or institutional support, forcing reliance on volunteer labor.
  • Fragmentation: The decentralized nature of Diamond OA—often comprising small, discipline-specific journals—hinders standardization, discoverability, and integration with global indexing systems.
  • Scalability: While ideal for tightly knit academic communities, the model struggles to expand without systemic investment in shared resources (e.g., cross-institutional funding, open-source publishing tools).

Critics argue that without systemic reforms—such as sustained public funding, institutional coalitions, or technological innovation—Diamond OA risks remaining a patchwork of passionate but precarious initiatives. Nevertheless, its alignment with academic values keeps it at the forefront of discussions about a more equitable future for scholarly communication.

Cost, Sustainability, and Financial Models

A central question in any OA model is: who pays, and how? Plan S often assumes that APCs are a necessary and scalable mechanism to fund publishing costs. While this may work well in well-funded fields and regions, it becomes problematic in settings where research funding is limited or non-existent. Researchers without access to institutional funds face barriers, and journal choice may become constrained by affordability rather than relevance or prestige.

Under Plan S, costs are often shifted to research institutions, funders, and in many cases, to authors themselves. This market-driven model risks creating a pay-to-publish ecosystem, where those with greater resources enjoy greater visibility and impact. While transparency in APC pricing is a stated goal of Plan S, price variation and profiteering by some large publishers remain a concern.

On the other hand, Diamond OA eliminates these issues by decoupling publishing from direct payment altogether. However, the absence of a unified financial strategy can also be a weakness. Relying on university funding, philanthropic grants, or volunteer work can be unpredictable and unsustainable in the long term. Many Diamond journals operate on shoestring budgets, which can affect the quality of editorial processes, technological upgrades, and discoverability.

From a cost-efficiency perspective, Diamond OA can be extremely lean, particularly when hosted on open-source platforms or supported through academic collaborations. Yet the lack of centralization means that each journal must independently solve problems related to hosting, archiving, indexing, and promotion.

Infrastructure, Discoverability, and Scalability

Plan S strongly emphasizes technical requirements: compliant platforms must support machine-readable metadata, persistent identifiers (such as DOIs), long-term preservation, and license transparency. These standards are essential for discoverability, interoperability, and digital preservation. Major commercial publishers can easily meet these standards, but smaller journals, particularly those operating under Diamond OA, often lack the resources or expertise to comply.

By contrast, Diamond OA’s decentralized nature allows for grassroots innovation but often at the cost of consistency. Many Diamond journals operate without DOIs, comprehensive metadata, or formal indexing. This limits their visibility in global research databases and makes it harder for authors to get citation traction.

Several international initiatives, such as the DIAMAS and CRAFT-OA projects in Europe, are working to improve infrastructure support for Diamond OA journals. However, these efforts are still nascent and unevenly distributed across regions. Diamond OA will struggle to scale and integrate into the global research ecosystem without concerted investment in shared infrastructure.

Plan S benefits from its centralized coordination and global policy leverage. Its mandates drive compliance and infrastructure development, often backed by large funders with political and financial power. But this top-down model risks leaving behind institutions and journals that can’t keep up, reinforcing systemic inequalities.

Global Equity and Regional Realities

One of the most important considerations in evaluating any OA model is how it serves the global scholarly community, particularly regions outside North America and Europe. Plan S, though well-intentioned, is often seen as Eurocentric. Its policies presuppose a level of infrastructure, funding, and regulatory compliance that is not universally accessible.

In regions like Southeast Asia, Africa, or Latin America, where local journals often operate in native languages and with limited funding, compliance with Plan S can be burdensome. Many researchers in these areas publish in national journals that are Diamond OA by necessity, not design. These journals fulfill crucial roles in local knowledge dissemination, yet they are often excluded from global indexes and OA policy conversations.

Diamond OA offers a more adaptable model for these contexts because of its low-barrier philosophy. It respects local publishing cultures and avoids imposing one-size-fits-all mandates. However, the lack of policy frameworks and institutional support often leaves Diamond journals isolated and under-resourced.

There is a growing recognition of the need for inclusive global OA strategies that account for diverse economic and scholarly realities. Regional consortia, capacity-building programs, and public investment in infrastructure could help bridge the gap. For now, though, Plan S and Diamond OA each remain partial answers to a global problem.

Scholarly Autonomy and Academic Culture

A less discussed but vital issue is how different OA models affect academic autonomy. Plan S’s mandate-based approach pressures researchers to conform to funder requirements. While this may accelerate the transition to OA, it can also limit academic freedom in journal choice and disrupt long-standing scholarly practices.

Diamond OA, in contrast, tends to be bottom-up. Journals are often run by scholars for scholars, with editorial policies shaped by disciplinary norms rather than market forces or funder demands. This autonomy fosters experimentation, interdisciplinarity, and scholarly community building. The downside is that the absence of formal structures can lead to inconsistent quality control and peer review standards.

There’s also a cultural dimension at play. In many disciplines, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, the notion of paying to publish remains taboo. Diamond OA offers a dignified path forward for these communities, aligning with their public scholarship and community ownership traditions.

Diamond open access vs Plan S - STEM

Plan S has succeeded more in STEM fields, where centralized funding and APCs are more normalized. But even here, resistance persists—especially from researchers who view APCs as distorting incentives and undermining the peer review process.

Which Model is Better?

The answer depends on what “better” means. If speed, compliance, and centralized policy enforcement are the goals, then Plan S has a clear advantage. It has shifted the global conversation and forced traditional publishers to rethink their models. Plan S offers a structured path for funders and institutions that value control and metrics.

However, if equity, inclusivity, and academic autonomy are prioritized, Diamond OA is more aligned with those values. The no-fee model removes many of the barriers that plague both readers and authors. It’s more sustainable philosophically, even if financial sustainability remains elusive.

In an ideal world, the strengths of both models could be combined: Plan S’s rigor and infrastructure with Diamond OA’s inclusivity and ethical grounding. The real challenge is not choosing between them, but integrating their best features into a pluralistic, globally sensitive OA ecosystem.

Conclusion

Open access is not a single path but a spectrum of practices, policies, and philosophies. Diamond Open Access and Plan S represent two poles of this spectrum, each offering different answers to the same fundamental question: How should knowledge be made accessible?

Plan S, with its policy-driven structure and emphasis on compliance, has pushed the OA agenda forward at scale. It works well in resource-rich environments but often stumbles when applied globally without adaptation. Diamond OA, meanwhile, fosters a more equitable and community-driven vision but struggles with sustainability and standardization.

Neither model is a silver bullet. Instead, the future of open access likely lies in a hybrid approach—one that acknowledges regional realities, supports infrastructural development, respects scholarly autonomy, and balances the financial equation in favor of the public good. For academic publishing to truly evolve, stakeholders must invest in cross-model collaboration, inclusive funding mechanisms, and policy frameworks that support diversity in publishing practices.

As debates around OA intensify, we must resist the urge to seek a singular solution. Instead, we should embrace the complexity and aim for a publishing ecosystem that is not only open but also fair, resilient, and genuinely global.

Leave a comment