At the 9th Library Congress 2025, 113.BiblioCon, in Bremen, four open access consortial offices hosted a hands-on lab entitled Sustainably Organizing Consortial Open Access Financing in Dialogue with Library Acquisitions”. The aim of the workshop was to analyse and discuss in depth libraries’ needs and challenges when it comes to financing open access publications. The key findings of the “topic tables” were as follows: There is a pressing need for transparency regarding cost information and pledging amounts. Structural and long-term financing methods (rather than individual funding on a purely case-by-case basis) are considered necessary. Consortial models are valued as a key instrument for promoting bibliodiverse, jointly funded diamond open access publications, but the heterogeneity of the publishing landscape means that the implementation of these models is challenging. Decision-making aids, the targeting of departments responsible for budgeting, and more awareness and information work were identified as prerequisites for broader participation.

Diamond Open Access

Open access refers to the possibility of making scientific findings freely available on the Internet and reusable without access barriers. Several models exist for this purpose, one of which is diamond open access – a concept that has been intensively discussed for years now and that is interpreted in different ways. Some consider diamond open access to be a subtype of gold open access, whereas others regard it as a separate publication category with clear delimitation criteria (see Dellmann et al., 2022). 

This lack of definitional consensus is due mainly to the fact that the underlying criteria vary. However, a common denominator of all definitions of diamond open access is that no publication charges – be they article processing charges (APCs) or book processing charges (BPCs) – arise for authors or for the institutions with which they are affiliated, and that readers can access the content without charges or subscriptions.

Some definitions also include further aspects. It is often required that the publication organs must be scholar led – that is, led by scholars or scholarly societies with whom the title rights remain. The exclusion of commercial interests is sometimes also considered a central criterion. Diamond open access is financed through different models, for example through institutions, funding programmes, or cooperative community structures. In this post, we focus on consortial funding.

One way of meeting the costs of publishing a scholarly journal or book is to organize a consortium where several institutions come together to jointly bear the production costs incurred by the publishing editors. 

The Open Library of Humanities (OLH) has long pioneered this funding model. In recent years, several initiatives and projects that organize consortial open access funding for various disciplines have also arisen in Germany. As a rule, one institution acts as a consortial office and organizes the recruitment of both the consortial partners and the journals or books for diamond open access funding.

Transformative agreements enable neither the short- nor the long-term transformation of the publication landscape to full diamond open access (Mittermaier, 2025). In individual disciplines, for example education research, this has already been empirically confirmed (Rettelbach, 2025).

Alternative ways, for example diamond open access funding consortia, are therefore urgently needed. For institutions, participation in a consortium involves little administrative effort. In addition, it promotes bibliodiversity and enables fair access to research literature and data. The contributions payable are usually lower than a single APC or BPC, and most consortial offerings fund several journals and/or books.

Open exchange with the open access community, and especially with those responsible for library acquisitions, took centre stage at the workshop. To make the diverse perspectives and experiences of the participants visible, the format chosen was a World Café – a participatory discussion method where participants explore topics in small groups at “topic tables” and are encouraged to move to a new table after each round. In this way, key issues and ideas could be explored from different perspectives.

The topics discussed at each table related to consortial open access funding. The focus was on four key areas: “(Price) Transparency”, “Funding Possibilities”, “Added Value and Decision-Making Aids”, and “Existing Offerings”. At each topic table, experiences were shared, challenges identified, and concrete approaches formulated for future developments.

Regarding price transparency, the role of the consortial offices was emphasized as entities that examine the cost structures of the journals and book projects, although it is unclear whether the consortia are fully capable of doing so. As far as the pricing of open access consortial offerings is concerned, a large measure of trust is placed in the consortia. On the one hand, it was argued that diamond open access should always be a non-profit offering and that price transparency is therefore not so important in this case. On the other hand, it was suggested that in order to be able to better understand what libraries and information institutions exactly finance, greater transparency regarding the way pledging amounts come about would be desirable. At a fundamental level, participants discussed whether it might not be better to move away from the individual funding of diamond open access journals in favour of an infrastructural funding of diamond open access. This point was discussed in depth in relation to the possibilities of funding diamond open access.

In the small-group rounds, it was noted that thorough knowledge of funding possibilities for (diamond) open access was a key desideratum and that more overarching solutions were needed. At the workshop participants’ institutions, most of the budgetary resources are currently used for acquisitions, whereas open access budgets, let alone differentiated information budgets, rarely exist. These budgetary resources are supplemented in part through central flat-rate grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR). However, financing flexibility is fundamentally limited by DEAL agreements and other transformative agreements, and cash flows are increasingly needed from research areas. However, it was noted that almost no activities take place and no financing flexibility exists at universities of applied sciences, as was illustrated using Switzerland as an example.

Furthermore, the possibility of viewing diamond open access as fundamental infrastructure support was discussed, and sustainable solutions were called for. The proposal from a Leopoldina discussion paper was welcomed in principle as a long-term solution. However, its concrete implementation was discussed quite critically by the participants. 

Funding consortia were discussed as an important and key solution. In this connection, the heterogeneous situation in the scholarly publication landscape was portrayed as challenging. The disciplinary consortia represented at the workshop were described as exemplary, and the desire was expressed that best practices should continue to be developed by establishing further disciplinary consortia.

Criteria for Financial Participation in Diamond Open Access Offerings

In particular the disciplinary fit of an offering and the authors’ affiliations with their own institutions were cited as fundamental aspects of libraries’ financial participation in consortial models. These factors are already known from a survey conducted by the project KOALA-AV and have thus been explored in depth in discourse with the target group (see Schenke et al., 2025). Moreover, it was stressed that diamond open access should also be viewed from a solidarity perspective: Joint financing is considered a contribution to the necessary transformation of the publishing system in order to create a counterweight in the current APC/BPC crisis. 

Ideas for Concrete Added Value

Possible participation incentives discussed included discounts for conferences or memberships of scholarly societies if their journals are financed through diamond open access. Exclusive access to backlist titles was also cited as a possible added value. Backlist titles are books that are not part of the publisher’s frontlist (new releases) but rather were published some time ago and are still in print. Furthermore, consortial funding offerings can be perceived as an added value if they lead to the flipping of publication media that previously levied direct charges for reading access (subscriptions) or publishing.

Decision-Making Aids for Institutions

It was noted that to support institutions interested in consortial funding in their decision to participate, it was important that providers of diamond open access address decision-makers more specifically and send participation surveys in a more targeted manner – that is, directly to the institution department from which the budget for consortial participation can be used. To find out more efficiently which institutional resources could potentially be used for consortial funding and who the relevant contact person is, closer cooperation with the institutions is necessary.

In addition, it was noted that there was a need for more awareness and information about the functioning and use of diamond open access in the individual departments and faculties of institutions. One workshop participant described her institution’s “section tours”, in the course of which faculties are directly informed by open access staff – partly in combination with short explanatory videos (“library shorts”). She noted that these measures were labour intensive but had proved to be very effective. It was discussed whether consortial offices could capitalize on this, for example by developing a toolbox for section tours with information on diamond open access and their consortial models.

Framing and Perception

The discussion also showed that creating urgency is a question of framing. While the designation “subscribe-to-open” signals a direct necessity to support such models, (“no open access without subscription”), diamond open access looks at first glance like an offering that is freely available anyway. However, this impression is deceptive, as diamond open access can exist in the long term only if it is adequately co-financed.

Overarching Perspectives

One of the groups chose a more fundamental perspective. They questioned whether fictional added value was meaningful at all and suggested that libraries’ acquisitions logic should be aligned more with the principles of openness rather than with capitalist or reputation-based criteria. Moreover, when formulating added value, it was necessary to distinguish between advantages for institutions and advantages for authors. It was stressed that it was not permissible to subsume DEAL agreements under the label “diamond open access”. In addition, it was proposed that greater professionalisation and centralisation (e.g. through SeDOA) could contribute to visibility and better communication of the specific added value of diamond open access.

The existing (diamond) open access consortial offerings are always addressed to a specific discipline, and thus to a specific community. At the workshop, it became clear that (diamond) open access offerings can be promoted only in a discipline-specific way. In addition, important points for institutions include cost stability, relevance for their own institution/department/faculty, and usage numbers. Furthermore, participants emphasised that it was important to also finance existing open access journals and not just flipped journals.

Lack of reputation is considered a problem for journal start-ups. In addition, it was stressed that especially for start-ups, funding approved for a fixed period (e.g. 3 years or more) gives the journals greater planning security.

It was noted that for some libraries an opt-out rule is important when it comes to funding diamond open access for several years. This contrasts with the desire for planning security on the part of the funded journals. In most cases, consortial open access funding is still perceived merely as an additional burden on the budget, and it has yet to be integrated into regular library budgets. A lot of money is currently tied up in transformative agreements. These challenges are further exacerbated in times of financial shortages. A designated budget for consortial open access funding at institutions could be one solution. 

Further information on the offerings of these consortial offices can be found in the Diamond Funding Navigator.

• Dellmann, S., van Edig, X., Rücknagel, J., & Schmeja, S. (2022). Facetten eines Missverständnisses: Ein Debattenbeitrag zum Begriff „Diamond Open Access“. O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 9(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/5849)
• Mittermaier, B. (2025). Transformationsverträge sind eine Sackgasse: In Erinnerung an Irene Barbers (1966–2025). O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6117)
• Rettelbach, S., & Schindler, C. (2025). Zum Status quo der Open-Access-Transformation in der Bildungsforschung: Eine Analyse einschlägiger Zeitschriften aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6119)
• Schenke, J., Stork, K. S., & Tullney, M. (2025). Das Diamond-Open-Access-Modell KOALA aus erwerbungsbibliothekarischer Sicht: Ein Auswertungsbericht. O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal 12(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6162

Finger, J., Kuhlwilm, R., Schaarschmidt, S., Schindler, C., Schmiederer, S., & Stork, K. (2025). Konsortiale Open-Access-Finanzierung im Fokus beim Worldcafé auf der Bibliocon 2025. open-access.network. doi.org/10.64395/khw1r-jwy32.