Geographic differences in the uptake of diamond open access and APCs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographical and income level analyses have shown that gold OA journals tend to be much more expensive in the Western world and in richer countries compared to other regions where APCs are generally much cheaper and skewed by a minority of expensive journals (Figure 4). Despite that, APCs often dominate the conversation regarding the sustainability and affordability of OA publishing. However, this ignores the funding models that the vast majority of DOAJ listed journals (71%) are using as they do not charge APCs. These diamond journals have also increased at a higher rate than their APC-based counterparts. Differences in the adoption of diamond OA may be observed between regions with Latin America achieving close to 100% diamond OA through regional initiatives such as the SciELO platform. While problems related to the perceived quality of diamond journals persist among researchers, our results shows that the Western APC-based way to do OA does not have to be the only way for researchers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.029 | 0.046 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it