One of the positive developments in scholarly publishing over the past two decades has been a steady increase in transparency. Today’s research articles carry far more information than they used to. We routinely see persistent identifiers (DOIs), funding acknowledgements, author affiliations, licensing information, ORCID identifiers and, increasingly, statements relating to research integrity and the use of artificial intelligence.
These additions have not changed the underlying research, but they have made the scholarly record much richer. This helps researchers discover articles, enables institutions and funders to monitor research activity and provides the community with the data that facilitates analysis to understand how scholarly communication is evolving.
But one characteristic of almost every published article remains surprisingly vague.
The publishing model
We frequently describe articles as being either “Open Access” or, by implication, not Open Access. That distinction was, perhaps, once sufficient because Open Access represented a relatively clear alternative to subscription publishing. Today, however, that is no longer the case.
Open Access now encompasses several distinct publishing models, including Gold, Green, Diamond and Bronze. Each represents a different publishing model and has different implications for authors, institutions, publishers and funders. They differ in how publication costs are met, who provides access to the work, what licences apply, how content is archived and, ultimately, how the publishing model is sustained.
For example, consider the difference between Gold Open Access and Green Open Access
Gold Open Access means the final published version of the article is made freely available by the journal immediately upon publication. In many cases, the publisher charges an Article Processing Charge (APC) to cover publication costs, although some Gold Open Access journals do not charge APCs. These are commonly described as Diamond (or sometimes Platinum) Open Access journals.
Green Open Access means the author publishes in a traditional subscription journal but also deposits a version of the manuscript, usually the accepted author manuscript (after peer review but before the publisher’s formatting), in an institutional or subject repository. Access may be immediate or delayed if the publisher imposes an embargo period, and there is typically no APC for this route.
Despite these differences, the articles can both be described as Open Access, yet they are fundamentally different.
Articles also continue to be published through subscription or, at least, hybrid journals. That too is a publishing model, which should not be ignored.
Despite these different ways of publishing, we often reduce it to a binary definition, or even no definition at all. If we do define it, it will be presented as Open Access, or not. In doing so, we lose valuable information that is known at the point of publication but is not captured on the publication or captured in the metadata.
We already have the information
Very little new information (if any) would need to be collected if we wished to add even more transparency to scholarly publishing.
Publishers already know the publishing model for every article they publish. Indeed, it is fundamental to their business model. Moreover, it is not confidential (commercial or otherwise) and, in most cases it can be ascertained by doing some rudimentary searching. What is not possible, at the moment, is to get that information “in bulk” and analyse it.
So, the information already exists somewhere within the publication workflow or its associated metadata, yet it does not make its way onto the published paper, or into its metadata.
Would it not be a good idea if every article included information about its publishing model?
The precise terminology matters less than ensuring it is applied consistently. The community may ultimately prefer descriptions such as “Subscription”, “Gold Open Access” and “Diamond Open Access”, or perhaps standard abbreviations agreed through international standards. The important point is that the publishing model becomes visible rather than being absent or opaque.
Why this matters
At first sight, this might seem like a relatively modest proposal. What difference does one additional metadata field really make?
But history suggests that small improvements in metadata often have consequences far beyond their original purpose. Persistent identifiers such as DOIs and ORCID IDs are now fundamental components of the research ecosystem. Funding metadata has enabled entirely new forms of analysis. Standardised affiliations have improved institutional reporting and international comparisons.
Publishing models have the potential to follow the same path.
For researchers, they can understand how an article has been made available without having to investigate journal policies or licensing arrangements.
For institutions, a standard publishing model would make it much easier to analyse publication patterns, evaluate institutional strategies and understand the balance between different publishing routes. Libraries could better understand trends in publishing and expenditure, while funders would gain a clearer picture of how the research they support is being disseminated.
Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries would be researchers studying scholarly communication itself. Questions that currently require extensive data collection and interpretation could become much easier to answer. How rapidly are different publishing models growing? Which disciplines favour Diamond Open Access? Are institutions becoming less reliant on Hybrid journals? How do publishing models vary between countries or funding systems?
These are important questions, yet the information required to answer them is often fragmented because the underlying metadata is incomplete.
Transparency without advocacy
This proposal does not favour one publishing model over another. There are legitimate arguments for subscription publishing, Gold Open Access, Green Open Access, Diamond Open Access and Hybrid Open Access. Each serves different communities, disciplines and funding environments. This is not an argument about which approach is preferable.
Instead, it is an argument for describing the scholarly record more accurately.
Greater transparency does not determine the outcome of future debates. It simply ensures that those debates are informed by better information. As scholarly publishing continues to evolve, decisions about policy, funding and publishing strategy should be based on evidence rather than assumptions.
A natural next step
The scholarly record has become progressively richer because we have recognised the value of recording information that was once considered unnecessary. We now expect articles to include persistent identifiers, funding information, licences, affiliations and many other forms of structured metadata because they improve discoverability, accountability and analysis.
Every scholarly article is published through a particular publishing model. That information is already known. Making it explicit would require relatively little additional effort, yet it could significantly improve transparency, strengthen scholarly metadata and provide future researchers with a much clearer picture of how academic publishing continues to evolve.
Should every scholarly article explicitly state its publishing model?
Did you find this edition useful?
I publish two free weekly newsletters exploring different aspects of higher education, research and scholarly publishing. If you enjoyed this edition, you may also find value in the following.
Governance & Research in HE
A weekly brief for higher education leaders and researchers examining governance, leadership and research in practice.
https://buff.ly/GhsZqVl
Publishing with Integrity
Examining scholarly publishing through an ethical lens, challenging assumptions and supporting academic career development.
https://buff.ly/WiG1yFb
About the Author
Graham Kendall is Vice-Chancellor of GlobalNxt University and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham. Having published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers and spent over 25 years researching artificial intelligence and higher education, he writes regularly on scholarly publishing, research governance, ethics and the future of universities. His newsletter, Publishing with Integrity, explores practical ideas to strengthen transparency, trust and integrity across the research ecosystem.