The Diamond Discovery Hub (DDH) is meant to be a comprehensive list of Diamond Open Access Journals with a focus on community-owned ones. DDH inclusion for journals should be based on transparent editorial decisions, made by trusted sources (namely the institutional publishing service providers such as publishers) themselves and a DDH editorial team. The decision whether a journal qualifies for inclusion or not is based on six criteria. The text in the grey boxes help you to check these criteria and make decisions whether a journal is a genuine Diamond Open Access Journal.
1. Persistent identification
The journal should have a valid and confirmed ISSN (https://www.issn.org/).
Practical recommendation for criteria 1 (persistent identification)
Checked at the journal level
Why should we check this?
Registration and confirmation of an ISSN is one of the aspects of professional journal operation. Journals are meant to be findable and referenced unambiguously.
How should we check this?
Go to https://portal.issn.org/ and enter the ISSN number into the search field, check whether it exists and corresponds to the journals you are verifying. Note that local ISSN authorities such as national libraries confirm the registered ISSN as soon as such an ISSN is connected to published content. Usually different ISSNs exist for print versions and electronic versions. You should verify the one for the open access version. If you need to check larger amounts of journals and want to automate that process (f.e. because you are a large national hosting platform) get in touch with your national ISSN centre (find out https://www.issn.org/services/requesting-an-issn/ which of your national institutions is in charge for ISSN’s).
If a journal is already listed in DOAJ you can consider this as fulfilled.
2. Scholarly journal
The journal should be a scholarly journal that selects papers via an explicitly described evaluation process before and/or after publication, in line with accepted practices in the relevant discipline (See also DOAS https://doi.org/10.58121/Z15S-JY03).
Practical recommendation for criteria 2 (scholarly journal)
Checked at the journal level
Why should we check this?
Diamond Open Access as a model should refer scholarly and scientific content in order to receive adequate visibility, recognition and thus funding for this model. Its scope should therefore be clear.
How should we check this?
The publisher should state publicly that all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous evaluation process before and/or after publication that is in line with accepted practices in the relevant discipline. This evaluation process can involve peer review, or another type of evaluation by more than one competent person who has no conflict of interest with the author(s). Crucial aspects of the reviewing or evaluation process must not be left to first-level publication support such as editorial secretaries or editorial assistants, or AI.
Check the publisher’s website. Roles and responsibilities related to the reviewing or evaluation process should be comprehensively described on the publisher’s or journal’s website.
If a journal is already listed in DOAJ you can consider this as fulfilled.
3. Open Access with open licenses
All outputs of the journal should be Open Access and carry an open license that is included in the article-level metadata.
Practical recommendation for criteria 3 (open access with open licenses)
Checked at the journal (article) level
Why should we check this?
In all forms of Open Access transparency on accessibility and reuse rights is a prerequisite. The same should apply in Diamond Open Access.
How should we check this?
Page access restrictions such as institutional log-in or registration on the website are not compatible with Open Access. Look for an unambiguous statement on the journal’s website that the journal’s content is published Open Access. General statements on a publisher website about open access or formulations like “gratis download” or “free to read” are not enough, neither is only partial or embargoed open access. If an Open Access statement is missing or vague, you should be extra careful in checking the Open Access licenses at the article level for a few issues from the previous one or two years.
The entire current content of the journal’s issues must carry license information to indicate how the journal’s content can be used. Ideally the journal uses established Open Access licenses such as Creative Commons. Different licences for different content types (for example cc-by and cc-by-nc in one journal) are okay as long as the licence scheme is deliberately stating open access reuse rights for readers.
Be strict on this issue even if the journal seems to be moving in the right direction and share the Diamond OA values. Publishers or journals will usually be able to improve on issues around open access licenses – maybe not for their backlist (which DDH does not ask them to do) but certainly for their current content and frontlist.
If a journal is already listed in DOAJ you can consider this as fulfilled unless the DOAJ journal record hasn’t been updated for several years and the licence situation seems suspicious.
4. No fees
Publication in the journal is not contingent on the payment of fees of any kind (e.g. article processing charges or membership dues). The journal should state this as such on its webpage. Voluntary author contributions and donations are allowed, if this is not a condition for publication.
Practical recommendation for criteria 4 (no fees)
Checked on the journal level or at the publishers website
Why should we check this?
Operating Diamond Open Access journals is usually an institutional commitment to create alternatives to the commercial open access models, based on author-facing charges (APCs) or transformative agreements. These financial models both create problems around equity, diversity and participation. The absence of fees or funds from libraries sets these journals apart and deserves recognition.
How should we check this?
Note that in rare cases Diamond Open Access publishing options are only available if authors purchase a specific article template or become a member of a learned society or scientific association. We consider this as “hidden fees” and thus not Diamond Open Access. Submission fees refundable on acceptance also collide with Diamond OA. If an Open Access journal accepts donations or voluntary author contributions to fund their operation, this is acceptable also for Diamond Open Access. Nevertheless authors should not feel forced to donate or pay.
If a journal is already listed in the DOAJ and its entry states that no APCs and no ‘Other charges’ apply, you can consider this criterion to be fulfilled. If the DOAJ entry has not been updated for several years, you should check the journal’s website for information on fees.
5. Open to all authors
Authorship in the journal should not be limited to any type of affiliation. Any author can submit an article that is in line with the aims and scope of the journal.
Practical recommendation for criteria 5 (open to all authors)
Checked at the journal level
Why should we check this?
Diamond Open Access still has to contend with the prejudice that it is inferior Open Access through which research institutions distribute their own publications without rigorous review procedures. Institutional platforms for working papers, preprints or reports are meaningful parts of the publishing system. However, scientific journals should be open to all authors, regardless of their operating model as a Diamond Open Access journal.
How should we check this?
Ideally a journal has a self-declaration on the journal’s website. “Call for Papers” also strongly indicates openness. Journals that are open to all authors should not restrict the publication to the members of any learned society or institution, so pay attention to the information regarding the membership in a scholarly society or affiliation to a specific research institution. If there is no description of affiliation requirements for authorship and the journal is clearly a scholarly journal, you can consider this criterion as fulfilled.
Being listed in DOAJ is already a strong indicator that the journal controls for problematic endogeny of authors (vanity publishing). In the case of DOAJ-listed journals, you can limit your analysis on finding out about affiliation requirements as a prerequisite for authorship.
6. Community-owned
The journal title must be owned by public or not-for-profit organizations (or parts thereof) whose mission includes performing or promoting research and scholarship. These include but are not limited to research performing organisations (RPOs), research funding organisations (RFOs), organisations connected to RPOs (university libraries, university presses, faculties, and departments), research institutes, and scholarly societies. The journal should explain its ownership status on its webpage.
Practical recommendation for criteria 6 (community-owned)
Checked at the publisher or journal level Why should we check this?
This criteria seeks to assess whether a research community has sufficient sovereignty over processes and accountability of a journal and whether a journal supports a publishing system based on equity, diversity and participation.
How should we check this?
Note that this aspect is challenging and sometimes it will be hard to reach a binary decision (in/out). For example, journals can be clearly for the public good and yet be operated as private companies, as scientific publishing often involves flows of money or contractual relations for specific services. This means that f.e. independent groups of scholars need to adopt some kind of legal body for their publishing activities. On the other hand, university presses or society publishers in some fields hold large market shares and maximise their profits wherever possible. In many cases, the status of the mother institution indicates that the publishing endeavour is mission driven, not for profit or publicly owned. Consulting specific lists of IPSPs and IPTPs, for example regional associations of university publishers will help you as well. Use mission statements, preambles and self-declarations on a journal or publisher website to base your decision on. If the masthead mentions a company or an association, have a look at the company’s or association’s website to understand its nature. Also glancing over editorial board composition and editors’ affiliations help. If you still find it hard to decide, look at the published content to assess whether the reason for publishing seems to be of a genuine scientific nature (meaning the legal body for publishing was probably created to enable the publishing) or seems to serve a commercial or political purpose (means the publishing policy serves other goals of the legal body).