The future of scholarly publishing depends not only on how research is published, but also on how the publishing ecosystem is funded and supported. Diamond Open Access (OA) offers a model where neither authors nor readers pay fees, but making this model work in the long term requires investment in the people, organisations and infrastructure behind it.

As part of our Discussions with the EDCH Funders series, we are speaking with organisations supporting the development of Diamond Open Access and the wider scholarly publishing ecosystem. 

In our first conversation, Ashley Farley from the Gates Foundation shares her perspective on Open Access funding, the Foundation’s approach to Diamond OA, and the role funders can play in shaping the future of scholarly publishing.

What were the reasons for the Gates Foundation to invest in Diamond Open Access? 

With over a decade of open access policy and implementation experience we’ve learned so much about what has worked and what hasn’t in making open access the norm in academic publishing. We have seen the APC model become the predominant open access business model and we’ve seen the  unintended consequences: unaffordability to publish, entrenchments of inequities in research (those who can afford APCs continue to benefit from the prestige market while those do not now struggle more), increasing and untransparent prices, publishers pushing increases in publishing volumes or number of journals to increase revenue streams. These consequences caused us to pause and reevaluate the business models we support to achieve open access. Out of the current models it is clear that Diamond Open Access would solve for many of the concerns with the other prevailing models. Diamond OA extends past solely being a  business model as it is  established in core values that align closely with the Gates Foundation’s own values. It is community-led,  focused on non-commercial infrastructure and values. Investing in Diamond OA feels like a natural step after abandoning the APC model. 

What do you see as the biggest potential of Diamond OA for the future of scholarly publishing?

The greatest potential lies in Diamond Open Access (Diamond OA) becoming the predominant model of scholarly publishing, fostering a non-commercial ecosystem grounded in the shared belief that knowledge is a fundamental human right.  Based on my experience throughout my career I no longer believe that we can achieve nor afford a full OA ecosystem with commercial publishers in control - long gone is the idea that we could simply flip the model to Open Access. 

The Gates Foundation has taken a strong position on moving away from article processing charges (APCs). Which attributes of the APC model led to this change, and what would you like to see them replaced with?

The main reasons to move away from APCs include, but are not limited to: 

1. Increasing inequities that APCs perpetuate highlighting that the financial barriers have moved from reader to the author. And the cost of an APC is multitudes higher than purchasing an article from behind a paywall. We also never solved the serial crisis for libraries. 
2. Lack of cost/price transparency - despite many different projects seeking price transparency they haven’t been successful in helping those paying APCs understand what they are paying for. 
3. Paying APCs makes just that single article openly available; it doesn't benefit or support a broader OA publishing ecosystem. 
4. Many APCs price raises outpace the rate of inflation without an increase in value or benefit to whomever is paying. I think it should be core to a funder’s mission for their funding in open access to benefit more than just their grantees or the research work that they fund. This will ensure a healthy and sustainable open access ecosystem. 
5. The APC model maintains the incorrect conception that OA is only achieved through financial transactions. It acts as an erasure to green/repository open access. It also emphasizes the reliance on the journal version of record being made OA whereas preprints or author accepted manuscripts can be openly shared at no cost to the authors. 
6. More has been written about this change here and here. 

I would love to see an ecosystem that does not require a per article payment - either to read or publish. 

Diamond OA does not charge authors or readers any fees to publish and read, but it still costs money to run and sustain. What do you think funders need to invest in to make Diamond OA sustainable in the longer term?

I think funders need to become more comfortable in longer-term funding of open infrastructure to cover a large portion of these publishing costs. There is an opportunity to do this collaboratively with other funders and governments to rethink how we pay for open access publishing. 

As important as it is to invest in Diamond OA I think it is just as critical to know what not to invest in or how to reinvest current funding that is not supporting Diamond OA. Funders and libraries need to stop the flow of money to places that do not match our values or provide value commensurate with the amount paid. 

Research funding has increasingly included the costs of making research openly available. No longer paying for APCs means funders must find other ways to support the costs of OA publishing. What do you think is required to support the organisations, infrastructure and services that make scholarly publishing possible?

Funders acknowledge that there are costs associated with publishing. I think we are still understanding what these costs include and what it does not include, such as the cost of prestige publishing or the influence of the Impact Factor. I think we have to stop thinking about OA on an article level. Funders should pivot from supporting OA through each research grant at the discretion of the researchers but support DOA directly and then promote these options to grantees to use. Leaving it at a grant level leads to instability and opaqueness of publishing funding flows. 

Diamond OA funding is often fragmented, time-limited and project-based. Where do you see the biggest gaps, and what could funders do differently to move towards a more stable and sustainable Diamond OA ecosystem?

I think the biggest gap is that there isn’t yet a solid mechanism for funders to work together to fund an ecosystem of Diamond OA. I don’t think Diamond OA journals can be funded on an individual level - it just isn’t scalable or most likely sustainable. This is a time where creative thinking and innovation is needed to envision what the Diamond OA ecosystem could look like and how it could function at its healthiest. 

Europe has a large and diverse Diamond OA community, but funding approaches vary significantly between countries. What could European funders learn from the Gates Foundation’s experience, and what could Gates learn from the European Diamond OA community?

One thing I think that could be learned from the Gates Foundation experience is the willingness to experiment and take risks. In an emerging field such as scaling Diamond OA, there is a great deal to learn from both successes and failures. Another element is supporting infrastructure that benefits a truly global community - many national funders naturally focus on funding what benefits their immediate research community - now is the time to think globally. 

The Gates Foundation could learn from the European Diamond OA community about how to bring together researchers in a meaningful way to best support Diamond OA. It would help improve the success of Diamond OA if the foundation invested more time into socializing the model with grantees and elevating their current Diamond OA publishing options. As Diamond OA journals become stronger by highlighting great research the status of their journals increase - thus making them more competitive with their commercial counterparts. 

Looking five years ahead, what is one thing you would like to see research funders do differently when it comes to supporting Open Access and scholarly publishing?

In 5 years I would like to see an increased focus of funders to fund the infrastructure that allows the community to do publishing activities. Hopefully, within this timeframe, more funders will realise that spending money within the commercial publishing system does not provide a good return on investment and increases the strain on a precarious Open Access publishing ecosystem. Redirecting money from this system to one that is non-commercial and community-led will be critical to the success of OA. 

The EDCH thanks the Gates Foundation for its support of the European Diamond Capacity Hub and Ashley Farley for sharing her perspectives and taking the time to contribute to this interview.

Support Diamond Open Access

Want to support a more equitable, community-led scholarly publishing ecosystem? The European Diamond Capacity Hub (EDCH) brings together organisations, services and resources to strengthen Diamond Open Access in Europe and beyond.

Find out how your organisation can contribute to a sustainable future for Diamond OA and support the EDCH's work: https://edch.eu/support-edch