Beware ‘naive’ switch to ‘utopian’ diamond journals, warns editor

Champions of the free and unpaywalled model overlook the vast amount of unpaid academic labour that underpins such titles, says departing editor

May 2, 2025
Cutting diamond
Source: iStock

Diamond open-access journals are too reliant on unpaid academic labour and the goodwill of university libraries to remain financially sustainable, according to the founding editor of a well-regarded social science journal who has blamed the switch to the free-to-read, free-to-publish model for her publication’s demise.

Announcing her decision to wind up?Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, which has been published twice a year since 2006, Ursula Huws said the “well-meaning but naive” decision by her publisher, Pluto Journals, to move the journal to diamond open access (DOA) in 2021 had removed crucial sales and subscription income?that covered editorial costs and labour.

“I cannot continue to invest some 2,000 hours of unpaid work in the journal each year without some hope of reimbursement,” explains Huws in an open letter signalling her intention to close the journal on changing labour practices at the end of 2026.

“The utopian idea behind diamond open access is that librarians will be prepared, voluntarily, to pay fees for their users to access articles that are freely available. Unfortunately, at a time when universities are cutting their budgets, the numbers willing and able to do so are likely to be infinitesimal,” explains Huws.

成人VR视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“The hard-won base of subscribers that we put together so laboriously during the first decade of our work, like Humpty Dumpty, once broken cannot be put back together again.”

With academic publishing now dominated by “large profit-making global publishers, whose reputations for rapacity rub off onto other, smaller, publishers”, it is increasingly difficult for smaller publishers to persuade libraries to financially support their titles, Huws adds.

成人VR视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking to?成人VR视频, Huws, a former professor of employment and globalisation at the University of Hertfordshire, explained that the journal’s transition to?DOA had been facilitated by a grant but such interim funding could not be relied on in the long term.

“People pushing for DOA seem to come from a non-governmental organisation background – they assume that ‘because we are doing good, someone will pay for it’,” said Huws, who argued that the insistence on not collecting article processing charges (APCs) or submission fees was misguided.

“We’ve had authors saying they are able to pay APCs – with their universities budgeting for this – but the diamond model means you can’t accept this income,” she said, adding: “It’s ridiculous to throw out scarce income in this way.” Pluto Journals, an independent press focused on the social sciences, was contacted for comment by?THE.

Diamond journals have been championed in recent times as a low-cost alternative to commercial publishing dominated by the “Big Five” companies, with the European Commission throwing?its weight behind this model as part of its relaunched Plan S strategy.

成人VR视频

ADVERTISEMENT

However, with budgets so tight, diamond journals are only able to offer small bursaries rather than sums that properly compensated publications for editorial costs, including staff, software and fees, said Huws.

“The whole model is based on gift labour and publishers seem to enter a world reminiscent of Jane Austen where terms like ‘small stipends’ are used,” she said.

Huws said she had received offers from other larger publishers keen to acquire the journal but only on condition that it massively increase the volume of articles published and the frequency of publication. Acceding to these requests would endanger the quality of output and the ability to commit time and resources to revision and editing, she said.

“I would rather see it close down than it become formulaic and superficial,” explained Huws, who said she was dismayed by the falling editorial standards in many journals?that increasingly relied on untrained editorial staff in the Global South, automated requests for reviewers and submissions and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for review purposes.

成人VR视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“Academics are now being too often contacted by a robot asking if they want to review a paper which itself has been written with extensive help from AI – which no one will read in any case,” said Huws. “The whole sector is collapsing in this way.

“Our ethos was that some papers might be written in bad English but you can turn these into great papers with editorial care and assistance. Unfortunately there is only a token recognition of the costs of doing this.”

成人VR视频

ADVERTISEMENT

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

I remember those happy days when everything was on paper, no online, and you got your photocopy card and went down to the stacks in the basement of Leeds University, which seemed to go on and on back and back until you were halfway back to Bradford, and spend a wjole afternoon browsing down there/All free, and you always made unexpected discoveries. some of those journals went back to 1950.
I am an Executive Editor of a diamond open access journal (Aerosol Research). We launched the journal in 2023, motivated in large part by the lack of open access options in the field of aerosol science. Our journal is hosted by Copernicus who charge an article processing fee that covers the salaries of professional staff who deal with the day-to-day typesetting and website etc. The journal relies heavily on voluntary efforts from a pool of topical editors who handle the open review process. In our experience people from across the aerosol community are happy to support the journal as it is not-for-profit and intended to support the community. We have a substantial fund to cover article processing fees that has been generously donated by aerosol societies across Europe, surplus from the European Aerosol Conference and several libraries (14 separate contributors). So far, money is not the limiting factor, and this has allowed us to focus on publishing good quality robust scientific studies. Our fall-back position if diamond open access doesn’t work out in a few years’ time is that we would start charging authors on the same basis as other Copernicus journals. On this basis our experience of the diamond model is more positive that of Ursula Huws and it seems a great shame to wind up what is apparently a successful journal.
I edit the free OA Journal of Political Ecology [founded 1994!] and have done so since 2003. We have no budget, but hosting and DOIs are covered by U of Arizona. I don't recognise this editor's dilemma. I do editing in my research or service time - it being the most rewarding part of the job. I could still do so if I was retired or out of work [I have had several jobs]. We have a journal team of volunteers. The journal is successful [look it up]. I proof and publish every article, sometimes working for hours, but they are dealt with before that by several stalwart associate editors and a Global South-led subsection, Grassroots. A culture change is underway towards journals like this - libraries are paying for OA journals as part of goodwill, which helps those that need paid staff. Department heads realise that we spend time editing. Academics are seriously annoyed with commercial publishers and high APCs. We have an obligation to just get on with editing tasks, according to our time and abilities, and I regard my small contribution as necessary. Just keep such journals away from any commercial entity or cost structure.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT