I’m honoured to be giving a talk on Diamond Open Access at the 89th Annual Conference of the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, DPG), specifically at the Spring Meeting of the Matter and Cosmos Section (SMuK).
This invitation by the DPG, one of the largest physical societies in the world, is a great privilege, and I’m very much looking forward to the discussions with researchers from across the physical sciences. As Open Access continues to shape the landscape of scientific publishing, it’s essential that we explore both its opportunities and its challenges—especially in disciplines like physics, where collaborative research and data sharing are key.
Below is an outline of my talk. Whether you’re attending the conference or simply interested in Open Access in physics, I’d be glad to connect and exchange ideas.
Open Access has expanded considerably: in 2024, according to OpenAlex (Herb, 2025) , about 50% of articles were published openly, predominantly via gold and hybrid business models. Yet dissatisfaction with APC-based publishing, concerns about inequitable participation, and the limited transformative impact of transformative agreements (Rothfritz et al., 2024) have shifted attention toward Diamond Open Access (DOA), where neither authors nor readers pay. As a result, DOA is increasingly framed by policymakers and advocates as the next major lever for restructuring scholarly publishing – Although, according to OpenAlex data (Herb, 2025), the percentage share of Diamond OA among all articles (Closed and Open Access) doubled from 3% in 2015 to 6% in 2024, its overall contribution remains marginal—and has been plateauing since 2021.
This contribution questions that narrative (and the DOA enthusiasm) by examining persistent misconceptions and structural blind spots. First, DOA is often treated as a coherent model—scholar-led, non-profit, free of charge—although these characteristics do not necessarily coincide. Moreover, journals and publishers still function as key quality signals in research assessment. Despite ongoing reform initiatives, prestige remains a decisive factor for researchers’ career trajectories, which limits the uptake of new or low-visibility DOA venues.
Second, the assumption that DOA is inherently cheaper might be misleading. Empirical cost studies and operational experience indicate substantial expenditures for editorial work, infrastructure, compliance, quality assurance, coordination, and scaling—costs often underestimated in non-profit environments. Questions of sustainability further complicate the picture.
Finally, while niche models and grassroots initiatives designed around specific disciplinary needs demonstrate that DOA can succeed under certain disciplinary and organisational conditions, such cases often do not readily scale. A limited capacity for scaling is not, in itself, evidence that DOA cannot function—but it does raise questions about its potential to drive a broader transformation of scholarly publishing.
The talk argues that DOA is a valuable component of the publishing ecosystem, but no panacea. Without realistic assessments of costs, incentives, and governance structures, the risk of repeating previous cycles of hype and disillusionment remains.
Herb, U. (2025). Open Access Trends in Scholarly Publishing 2015–2024. Pulse49.Com. https://doi.org/10.59350/sdrv6-wft63
Rothfritz, L., Schmal, W. B., & Herb, U. (2024). Trapped in Transformative Agreements? A Multifaceted Analysis of >1,000 Contracts (No. arXiv:2409.20224). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20224