In a recent blog post (in German), the authors Georg Fischer, Maike Neufend and Maxi Kindling from the Open Access Bureau Berlin (OABB) question the equation of DEAL contracts with diamond open access. The occasion was a panel discussion in which Gerard Meijer, Vice Spokesperson of the DEAL Group, presented DEAL as comparable to diamond open access.
Fundamental differences
DEAL, known as the ‘publish-and-read’ model, enables researchers to publish open access publications with major publishers such as Elsevier or Springer Nature and finances access to their archives. Libraries pay high fees in advance - known as ‘article processing charges’ (APCs) - for each open access publication. In prestigious journals, these can amount to up to 6,500 euros per article. There are also costs for reading access to archives. According to the blog authors, this financing model almost completely reduces the publishers' entrepreneurial risk: They receive their income regardless of whether an article is frequently cited or downloaded.
Diamond open access, on the other hand, is based on non-profit infrastructures that do not charge authors any fees. The publication costs are borne by public institutions or learned societies. The aim is decentralised, global knowledge production that functions independently of commercial interests.
Criticism and outlook
The authors emphasise that DEAL increases dependence on large publishers, while diamond open access enables more scientific sovereignty. Although diamond open access is associated with challenges, it offers a sustainable model for academic publishing in the long term. However, it requires political will and a reorganisation of funding.
Further sources
The blog post ‘DEAL ≠ Diamond. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zur Souveränität des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens’ can be read here: https://doi.org/10.59350/ab01a-dj116