Research indicates that hundreds of academic journals previously operating under the diamond open-access (OA) model have transitioned to charging publication fees, signaling a significant shift in scholarly publishing. A preprint analysis covering the period from 2009 to 2026 identified 440 titles that abandoned the diamond OA approach, which relies on institutional and library funding rather than charges to authors or readers.
Of these journals, 369 converted to gold OA, requiring authors to pay article-processing charges (APCs), while 52 adopted hybrid OA models that allow subscription-based access to individual articles for a fee. Nineteen journals moved entirely behind paywalls. The APCs introduced ranged from US$8 to $5,300, with professional publishers typically imposing higher fees compared to research organizations and society publishers.
Lisa Matthias, an information scientist at the Humboldt University of Berlin and lead author of the study, described the transitions as “diamond fractures.” The data shows at least one such fracture annually since 2009, but the trend has accelerated, with the majority occurring after 2020 and 2026 marking the highest annual count in the dataset.
The diamond OA model gained prominence in the late 2010s as a response to rising APCs that priced out researchers, particularly in lower-income regions. A 2021 analysis estimated there were then as many as 29,000 active diamond OA journals globally. However, Matthias noted that the study does not provide an exhaustive list of all journals that switched, nor does it detail the specific motivations for each individual title.
Key findings suggest that 88% of the journals remained with their original publishers, ruling out simple acquisition or sale as the primary driver. Furthermore, the journals that fractured were disproportionately older, established, and larger titles rather than struggling newcomers. More than half began their transition after at least nine years of operation.
“It doesn’t look like a survival story,” Matthias said. “It seems like these journals and their reputation had become commercially worth converting to a different model.” Despite commercial publishers accounting for 78% of these changes, the study found no marked increase in publication output following the switch, suggesting profit motives alone may not fully explain the trend.
Saray Córdoba, a retired information scientist at the University of Costa Rica, suggested that some publishers may believe commercial models enhance prestige. Regional analysis revealed a “relative scarcity” of diamond fractures in Latin America, where diamond OA is dominant and supported by platforms like Redalyc and SciELO, as well as local universities.
Matthias observed that this institutional support appears effective in protecting existing titles, though it remains unclear whether these organizations can sustain a new generation of diamond OA journals. Córdoba added that diamond OA titles are a “source of pride” for Latin American researchers, which may further explain the region’s resilience against such transitions.
I always wondered why my favorite society journal started charging fees. Glad I finally have a concrete answer to that mystery.
Wait, nineteen journals went fully paywalled? That is a massive step backward for open knowledge accessibility. Truly alarming.
The Latin American resilience makes total sense. Redalyc and SciELO provide real institutional backing that European journals often lack.
Does anyone know if those higher APCs are actually affecting submission quality, or is prestige just the new currency now?
It is concerning that these are established journals abandoning the model. This doesn’t feel like survival; it feels like greed in action.