{"title":"Mapping the German Diamond Open Access Journal Landscape","authors":"Niels Taubert, Linda Sterzik, Andre Bruns","doi":"10.1007/s11024-023-09519-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the current scientific and political discourse surrounding the transformation of the scientific publication system, significant attention is focused on Diamond Open Access (OA). Diamond OA is characterized by no charges for readers or authors and relies on monetary allowances and voluntary work. This article explores the potential and challenges of Diamond OA journals, using Germany as a case study. Two key questions are addressed: first, the current role of such journals in the scientific publication system is determined through bibliometric analysis across various disciplines. Second, an investigation is conducted to assess the sustainability of Diamond OA journals and identify associated structural problems or potential breaking points. This investigation includes an in-depth expert interview study involving 20 editors of Diamond OA journals. The empirical results are presented using a landscape map that considers two dimensions: 'monetized and gift-based completion of tasks' and 'journal team size.' The bibliometric analysis reveals a substantial number of Diamond OA journals in the social sciences and humanities, but limited adoption in other fields. The model proves effective for small to mid-sized journals, but not for larger ones. Additionally, it was found that 23 Diamond OA journals have recently discontinued their operations. The expert interviews demonstrate the diversity within the landscape and the usefulness of the two dimensions in understanding key differences. Journals in two of the four quadrants of the map exemplify sustainable conditions, while the other two quadrants raise concerns about long-term stability. These concerns include limited funding leading to a lack of division of labor and an excessive burden on highly committed members. Gift-like contributions, while appealing, also present challenges as potential donors not only decide whether to contribute but also how to contribute, potentially creating friction between the gift and the journal's requirements. Furthermore, journals in the lower right quadrant often rely on third-party funding, necessitating a transformation once the funding expires. Common pathways for sustaining operations include lobbying for funding at the journal's home institution or increasing reliance on gift-based completion of tasks. These findings underscore the need for the development of more sustainable funding models to ensure the success of Diamond OA journals.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09519-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the current scientific and political discourse surrounding the transformation of the scientific publication system, significant attention is focused on Diamond Open Access (OA). Diamond OA is characterized by no charges for readers or authors and relies on monetary allowances and voluntary work. This article explores the potential and challenges of Diamond OA journals, using Germany as a case study. Two key questions are addressed: first, the current role of such journals in the scientific publication system is determined through bibliometric analysis across various disciplines. Second, an investigation is conducted to assess the sustainability of Diamond OA journals and identify associated structural problems or potential breaking points. This investigation includes an in-depth expert interview study involving 20 editors of Diamond OA journals. The empirical results are presented using a landscape map that considers two dimensions: 'monetized and gift-based completion of tasks' and 'journal team size.' The bibliometric analysis reveals a substantial number of Diamond OA journals in the social sciences and humanities, but limited adoption in other fields. The model proves effective for small to mid-sized journals, but not for larger ones. Additionally, it was found that 23 Diamond OA journals have recently discontinued their operations. The expert interviews demonstrate the diversity within the landscape and the usefulness of the two dimensions in understanding key differences. Journals in two of the four quadrants of the map exemplify sustainable conditions, while the other two quadrants raise concerns about long-term stability. These concerns include limited funding leading to a lack of division of labor and an excessive burden on highly committed members. Gift-like contributions, while appealing, also present challenges as potential donors not only decide whether to contribute but also how to contribute, potentially creating friction between the gift and the journal's requirements. Furthermore, journals in the lower right quadrant often rely on third-party funding, necessitating a transformation once the funding expires. Common pathways for sustaining operations include lobbying for funding at the journal's home institution or increasing reliance on gift-based completion of tasks. These findings underscore the need for the development of more sustainable funding models to ensure the success of Diamond OA journals.
在当前围绕科学出版系统转型的科学和政治讨论中,钻石开放存取(OA)备受关注。钻石 OA 的特点是不向读者或作者收费,而是依靠货币津贴和志愿工作。本文以德国为例,探讨了钻石 OA 期刊的潜力和挑战。文章探讨了两个关键问题:首先,通过对不同学科的文献计量分析,确定此类期刊目前在科学出版系统中的作用。其次,对钻石 OA 期刊的可持续性进行评估,并找出相关的结构性问题或潜在的突破点。这项调查包括一项深入的专家访谈研究,涉及 20 名钻石 OA 期刊的编辑。实证结果通过一张考虑了两个维度的景观图来呈现:任务完成的货币化和礼品化 "和 "期刊团队规模"。文献计量分析表明,社会科学和人文科学领域有大量钻石 OA 期刊,但其他领域采用的数量有限。事实证明,该模式对中小型期刊有效,但对大型期刊无效。此外,研究还发现有 23 种 "钻石 OA "期刊最近停止了运营。专家访谈显示了期刊格局的多样性,以及两个维度对理解关键差异的作用。在地图的四个象限中,有两个象限的期刊是可持续发展的典范,而另外两个象限的期刊则令人担忧其长期稳定性。这些问题包括资金有限导致缺乏分工,以及高度投入的成员负担过重。礼品式捐助虽然吸引人,但也带来了挑战,因为潜在捐助者不仅要决定是否捐助,还要决定如何捐助,这可能会在礼品与期刊要求之间产生摩擦。此外,右下象限的期刊往往依赖第三方资金,一旦资金到期,就必须转型。维持运营的常见途径包括游说期刊所在机构提供资金,或更多地依靠捐赠完成任务。这些发现强调,有必要开发更具可持续性的资助模式,以确保钻石 OA 期刊的成功。
期刊介绍:
Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.