Summary
An analysis found that 440 journals that once published without charging authors or readers switched to other publishing models between 2009 and 2026. Most began charging authors article-processing fees, while others introduced subscriptions or paywalls.
An analysis of diamond open-access journals found that 440 titles switched to another publishing model between 2009 and 2026. Most moved to a system in which authors pay article-processing charges, while others introduced subscription-based access or placed all content behind a paywall.
Diamond open access refers to journals that are free for both authors and readers. Their publishing costs are covered by organisations such as universities, libraries, research institutions and non-profit groups rather than by author fees or reader subscriptions.
The analysis, published as a preprint, identified at least one journal moving away from the model in every year since 2009. The number of such changes increased in the later part of the period, with 2025 recording the highest annual count in the data set.
The shift away from diamond open access
Of the 440 journals identified, 369 switched to gold open access. Under that model, articles remain free to read but authors generally pay an article-processing charge, or APC. The charges introduced by the journals ranged from US$8 to US$5,300.
The amount varied with the type of publisher. Journals associated with what the researchers call professional publishers generally introduced higher APCs, while research organisations and scholarly societies tended to charge less.
Another 52 journals adopted hybrid open access. These journals continued to operate within subscription-based publishing systems but made individual articles free to read when an additional fee was paid. The remaining 19 titles moved entirely behind a paywall.
The pattern matters because diamond open access developed partly in response to concerns that high APCs were excluding researchers, particularly those working in lower-income regions. A 2021 analysis estimated that as many as 29,000 active diamond open-access journals existed worldwide at the time.
Established journals made up much of the change
The analysis found that 88% of the journals that changed models remained with the same publisher. This indicates that the increase was not simply the result of journals being sold or acquired by new owners.
The journals that switched were also disproportionately older, larger and more established. More than half—57%—made the change after at least nine years of operation. The study’s lead author, information scientist Lisa Matthias, said this pattern suggested that the changes were not primarily a story of young journals failing to survive.
Commercial publishers accounted for 78% of the identified switches. However, the journals did not markedly increase their publication output after changing models, according to the analysis. That result complicates a simple explanation based only on publishers seeking to increase the number of papers they publish.
The researchers and other experts cited in the analysis proposed that reputation and prestige may have influenced some decisions. Journals with established reputations may have become commercially attractive to publishers, while some editors or organisations may have viewed commercial publishing models as a route to greater status.
A different pattern in Latin America
The analysis found relatively few switches away from diamond open access in Latin America, despite the model’s strong presence in the region. The researchers linked this pattern to support from institutions and regional publishing platforms including Redalyc and SciELO, as well as from local universities.
Such support may help existing journals continue operating without charging authors or readers. The analysis also points to an open question for the region: whether these organisations can sustain a new generation of diamond journals as well as protect established ones.
The global count should be read as a record of identified cases rather than a complete census. No single database tracks every diamond open-access journal worldwide, so the analysis could not provide an exhaustive list of model changes or calculate the share of journals that remained diamond open access. It also did not determine why each individual journal changed its publishing model.