Universities Urged to Value Local Publishing

Why It Matters

Recognising and funding diamond open‑access journals would preserve a vital public‑good publishing ecosystem and strengthen the link between research and Australian policy outcomes.

Key Takeaways

• One-third of 650 Australian journals operate as diamond OA.
• 45% of diamond journal editors receive no compensation.
• Diamond journals are cited more in Australian policy documents.
• Universities lack workload credit for editorial roles in local journals.
• Canada and Norway fund diamond journals as public infrastructure.

Pulse Analysis

Australia’s research landscape is at a crossroads. While universities allocate millions of dollars to "read‑and‑publish" deals with commercial publishers, a substantial share of domestic scholarship thrives in diamond open‑access journals that cost nothing to read or publish. These journals, often housed within universities or learned societies, rely on volunteer editors and modest grants, positioning them as a public‑good infrastructure that contrasts sharply with profit‑driven models. Their existence underscores a growing tension between cost‑containment pressures and the desire to keep research freely accessible.

Recent research highlights the strategic value of Australia’s diamond journals. About 33% of the 650 identified titles fall under this model, with a notable concentration in the humanities, social sciences, and Indigenous studies—areas directly relevant to national policy. Editors report that nearly half receive no remuneration, and many institutions have stripped editorial duties from formal workload calculations, threatening the sustainability of these outlets. Despite these challenges, diamond journals enjoy higher citation rates in Australian government documents than many international counterparts, suggesting they play a pivotal role in informing local decision‑making.

Globally, countries such as Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom have begun treating diamond publishing as essential research infrastructure, providing direct funding, quality‑assurance frameworks, and shared technical support. Australia could adopt similar mechanisms: integrating editorial work into faculty workload models, allocating dedicated grant streams through bodies like the Australian Research Council, and revising research assessment criteria to value local impact alongside international prestige. Such reforms would safeguard a homegrown publishing ecosystem, ensuring that Australian scholarship remains both freely accessible and influential in shaping public policy.