Summit Report

Introduction

The 2^nd Global Summit on Diamond Open Access was held from 8 to 13 December 2024 at the University of Cape Town (Cape Town, South Africa). The University of Cape Town Libraries, in collaboration with Redalyc/AmeliCA, SPARC (USA), South Africa’s National Research Foundation, UNESCO, CLACSO, Association of African Universities (AAU), Europe Science and the University of Cape Town (Libraries and Department of Knowledge and Information Stewardship) and other stakeholders hosted the summit. These diverse range of stakeholders from across the globe came together to advance the collective understanding and commitment to Diamond Open Access (DOA).

Goals, objects and outcomes

Goals

The key goal of the summit is the centering of social justice within an inclusive and equitable diamond open access movement. There were three other complementary goals, namely:

• To grow the diamond open access model especially among marginalized research communities;
• To grow an open access movement that is more inclusive and equitable; and,
• To develop capacity through centering scholarly communication in LIS education curricula.

Objectives

The core objective of the summit is to provide a forum for engagement on social justice driving diamond open access. This forum is intended to mobilize the international community to accelerate the dissemination of scholarship through the removal of bias and the financial challenges.

Complementary objectives of the summit are:

• To grow the model and develop a sense of independence, it is critical to create a forum for the development of capacity which should include authorship workshops, editorial workshops and journal/monograph management workshops;
• To grow the next generation of scholarly communication leadership, it is important for this forum to ensure that LIS schools mainstream scholarly communication within their curricula;
• To develop communities of practice drawing from pockets of excellence that are currently exist across the world for the continued growth and development of diamond open access;
• To cultivate, nurture and grow forums that will develop a broad diamond open access framework which is flexible for adoption and adaptation in various regions depending on context and need;
• To accelerate engagement on research assessment and quality assurance for sustainability of the model; and,
• To debate, conceptualize and draft a declaration for international roll-out in an effort to have a publishing ecosystem that is inclusive and devoid of bias, financial and otherwise.

Outcomes

It is anticipated that the primary outcome of the summit is the growth of networking and collaboration and the development of capacity to accelerate global south participation in the publishing ecosystem.  Secondary outcomes include:

• Increasing the visibility of scholarship from the global south and previously marginalised research communities;
• Making global scholarship more accessible en route to accelerating the growth of scholarship emanating from previously marginalized research communities;
• Curtailing helicopter research via the expansion of forums to disseminate research from global south and previously marginalised communities; and,
• Eliminating or curtailing conscious and unconscious bias which is prevalent (and often dominates) in the current publishing ecosystem.

Attendance

The summit had delegates from across the global with the host continent dominating attendance. The total number of delegates, that is, in-person and virtual was 1171 – 546 delegates in person and 625 virtual registrations. In attendance were government officials, policymakers, researchers, librarians, students, IT personnel, Open Access advocates, and funders.

Item	Number
Country attendance
Number of countries represented	73
Number of African countries represented	36
Number of global south countries represented	41
Language diversity
English speaking delegates	421
French speaking delegates	71
Portuguese speaking delegates	19
Spanish speaking delegates	32
Swahili	3

Events

Given the generous financial support from various organizations, it was deemed prudent to host multiple events, as opportunities to welcome such a significant number of delegates from the Global South are exceptionally rare. Furthermore, the primary hosts were more than willing to contribute significantly to ensure the success of their respective events.

Event	Primary host	Dates
Advancing social justice through curriculum realignment: centering scholarly communication in LIS curriculum	DKIS	8-9 December
Third edition of Open Science in the South Conference	IRD & NRF	9-11 December
Open journal publishing workshop	PKP & Redalyc	9-10 December
Open monograph publishing	Copim Project & AAU	9-10 December
Main conference		11-13 December
Forum meeting	UCT	14 December
Meeting of African consortia	UCT	14 December
SPARC Africa meeting	SPARC	11 December

Summary of main conference engagements

Session 2a: Social Justice Advancing Inclusivity, Decolonization, and Demarginalization

1. Reframing African Narratives and Epistemic Justice
   • Kasturi Behari-Leak highlighted the ongoing struggles in Africa regarding representation, archives, and curating history. She argued for a shift in how Africa is framed in research and storytelling, pointing out the colonial biases that persist in academic publishing. Behari-Leak emphasized that research should not only be accessible but also serve the purpose of epistemic justice, ensuring that marginalized voices are heard and that the authority over one’s own history is restored. She critiqued how colonial research practices have perpetuated inequalities and argued that true social justice in academia requires a deep awareness and disruption of outdated research traditions.
2. Legitimacy and Citizen Responsibility in Open Science
   • Esther Juliana Vargas Arbaláez discussed the importance of knowledge commons institutions in fostering social justice. She pointed out that while institutions are critical in maintaining a just society, the legitimacy of these institutions relies on the engagement of a capable and educated citizenry. She stressed that both institutions and individuals must work together to legitimize and appropriate public goods, including open science. Vargas Arbaláez emphasized the need for broader inclusion, especially from the most disadvantaged sectors, and argued that true social justice in science hinges on democratic engagement.
3. Historical Contexts and the Need for Inclusive Research
   • Mari Sundli Tveit focused on the need to recognize and address systemic inequalities in access to research. She stressed that while progress in open access is important, it must be understood in its historical context, as early advances often had adverse effects on marginalized groups. Tveit emphasized the importance of true collaboration and reciprocity in research, with a focus on diversity across all dimensions—disability, gender, ethnicity, etc. She pointed out that open research and collaboration should be informed by trust and be sustainable in the long term.
4. Sustainability and Equity in Open Access Publishing
   • Alwaleed Aklhaja discussed the challenges facing open access publishing, particularly in terms of financial sustainability and inequitable agreements with publishers. He pointed out that while open access holds potential for research and cultural heritage preservation, there is a need for more transparent agreements and better infrastructure to ensure that open access is truly accessible. Aklhaja emphasized the need for a sustainable business model for DOA publishing and the importance of repatriating local heritage, particularly in native languages.
5. Exclusion Through Publisher Control and Metrics
   • Madhan Muthukumaraswamy critiqued the pay-to-publish open access model, arguing that it perpetuates exclusion and inequality in academic publishing. He contended that the model, along with the reliance on journal prestige, is fundamentally flawed, benefiting only a small number of publishers while excluding a broader range of research. Madhan also highlighted the misuse of journal metrics, which further reinforces the marginalization of research that does not conform to the commercial model.

Session 2b: Open Access as a Public Good

1. Science as a Human Right and Open Science Obligations
   • Megha Sud emphasized that the right to participate in and benefit from science is a fundamental human right, which underpins the open science movement. She argued that open science should be seen as an obligation to ensure the integrity of research and its accessibility to all. Sud pointed out the need for social engagement and trust in science, especially in addressing challenges such as disinformation. She advocated for building long-term collaborative relationships and rethinking scientific publishing processes to prioritize inclusivity and equity. She adds that one needs to ensure  the role of the scientific community in the governance of scientific publication over commercial interests if science is to serve as a public good
2. Privatization of Science and the Need for Equity in DOA
   • Aríanna Becerril García critiqued the privatization of parts of science, which she likened to the commodification of knowledge. She argued that the commercialization of journals undermines the concept of open access as a public good, turning research into a commodity available only to those who can afford it. Becerril García emphasized that DOA should move away from the concept of “prestige” in journals and focus on equity and quality. She pointed out the need for shared resources and responsible contributions to ensure the sustainability of open access, warning against the depletion of resources by commercial entities that do not contribute to the sustainability of the system.
3. Science as a Global Public Good
   • Ana Persic expanded on the idea of science as a human right and a global public good, emphasizing that science should benefit humanity as a whole. She identified several core values of open science, such as diversity, inclusivity, equity, and fairness. Persic pointed out that while open access is essential, it is not enough on its own to make science a public good. Infrastructure, engagement, policies, incentives and capacity development are also necessary. She called for a cultural shift towards open science, noting that the UNESCO Global Consultation on DOA is a key step in this process.

Session 3: Social Justice and Diamond Open Access (DOA) – Perspectives from the Globe

1. Challenges of APCs and the Need for Policy Change
   • Sylvie Rousset discussed the escalating costs of Article Processing Charges (APCs) and their detrimental impact on the accessibility of research. She highlighted that APCs create barriers for many researchers, particularly in developing regions, and warned that this unsustainable model risks compromising publication quality as journals may prioritize paying authors over quality content. Rousset called for high-level policy support to transition to more equitable models, such as open archives and a focus on peer review. She also emphasized the necessity to reform research metrics to reflect a diversity of contributions and establish centralised, qualitative assessments, advocating for systemic change in the research ecosystem.
2. Decolonizing African Food Knowledge
   • Mary Oyíela Abukutsa-Onyango presented her work on promoting the sustainable production and utilization of African indigenous vegetables. She underscored the importance of reframing perceptions of African crops as “poor man’s food” and making them globally desirable. She noted that the bias in international journals has led to the rejection of valuable research from Africa. Abukutsa-Onyango argued that open access provides the necessary platform for widespread dissemination, especially in the African context, and allows marginalized knowledge to reach the communities that need it most.
3. Research Assessment as a Barrier in India
   • Moumita Koley critiqued the impact of research assessment metrics, which often prioritize publication quantity and citations over the actual quality of research. Koley highlighted that this “publish or perish” culture suppresses meaningful research and undermines local journals, which are seen as inferior due to low indexing and rankings. She called for a disruptive shift away from the current model, stressing the need for fairer evaluation systems and support for local journals to foster true research quality.
4. Reclaiming Journal Ownership and Assessing Costs
   • Emily Choynowski advocated for reclaiming journal ownership from large commercial publishers, noting the dominance of Western publishers and their exploitation of local research. She stressed the importance of community-led, locally owned journals, particularly in the Arab world, where only a few journals publish Arabic-language research. Choynowski emphasized the need for a comprehensive financial assessment of fully open academic publishing, highlighting the unsustainable assumptions that open publication can be free, offered a detailed step-by-step breakdown of human and financial costs for the production stage of the publishing workflow, and warned against publishers’ efforts to profit from DOA by raising costs.”
5. China’s Role in Open Access Publishing
   • Liu Xiwen highlighted China’s leadership in open access publishing, noting that the country leads in both volume and proportion of OA publications, especially in Chinese. Liu discussed the challenges in applying international OA classifications to Chinese journals and the country’s heavy reliance on public funding to pay APCs. He described China’s investments in preprint platforms and institutional repositories and Pubscholaras part of its broader push to promote open science globally, facilitating academic exchange and the sharing of knowledge, expressing the intentions to cooperate with Global Souths.

Session 4: Sustainable DOA Infrastructure Advancing Social Justice

1. Building Open Science Infrastructure in Africa
   • Madara Ogot discussed the role of UbuntuNet Alliance in creating affordable open science infrastructure across East and Southern Africa. By aggregating demand, the network lowers the cost of connectivity and services, making research more accessible. Ogot emphasized the importance of providing free infrastructure for smaller institutions to host repositories and academic content. Projects like AfricArXiv and Tome, aimed at providing low-cost e-books, exemplify how open access can increase accessibility and reduce marginalization in education and research.
2. Challenges of Latin American Open Access
   • Saray Cordoba reflected on the inequalities in access to research in Latin America, but highlighting the dominance of non-commercial publishers, specially universities and scientific societies, in a region rich in cultural and natural resources. She noted the success of initiatives like Latindex, Redalyc, LA Referencia or SciELO which indexes local, non-profit Latin American journals, and the critical role of local journals in preserving regional knowledge. Cordoba stressed the need for greater recognition and visibility of these journals to overcome bias against non-Western research and to continue strengthening the open access movement in the region.
3. Strengthening Non-Commercial, Open-Source Infrastructure
   • Kathleen Shearer emphasized the importance of strengthening the DOA ecosystem by building non-commercial, open-source national infrastructures. Shearer discussed the model of shared infrastructure for local journals, which can offer a competitive advantage over commercial publishers. She highlighted how the Publish, Review, Curate model can be used to build peer-reviewed, open science platforms with greater flexibility and responsiveness, compared to the entrenched processes of large publishers.
4. Supporting Indonesia’s Open Access Growth
   • Arbain Arbain shared the efforts of Relawan Jurnal Indonesia to support local journals in achieving international visibility and quality standards. Arbain highlighted the issue of predatory publishing practices and the impact of APCs on local journals, which results in the loss of their DOA status. He called for supportive policies and the use of free tools to help local journals thrive, stressing that DOA is key to ensuring wider access to knowledge and greater equity in academic publishing.

Session 5: Developing an Equitable Ecosystem – Hubs of Innovative Solutions

1. Strengthening Non-Commercial Open Access Models
   • Andrea Mora Campos presented a journal management methodology anchored in open access, quality, and editorial independence. Built through international collaboration and stakeholder training, the model exemplifies the principles of the Latin American Open Science ecosystem. Platforms like Redalyc have helped reduce costs and eliminate reliance on third-party companies, preserving non-commercial, institutionally funded practices. She emphasized the importance of scaling such models across Central America and the Caribbean to protect journals as shared human heritage.
2. Leveraging Open Data for Equitable Research Evaluation
   • Lucy Montgomery and Karl Huang introduced the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) and its data infrastructure and workflow, which enables equitable, data-driven research approaches. The data workflow fosters transparency and inclusivity by allowing researchers to analyse open access trends, citation patterns and rethink traditional metrics. They highlighted the balance needed in data architecture—maintaining openness and diversity while ensuring interoperability through standardization. Their work demonstrated the transformative potential of open science built on open systems and data. The COKI Open Access Dashboard is one example resulting from this data workflow.
3. Innovation Hubs as Catalysts for Regional Growth
   • Eurico Wongo Gungula focused on the role of innovation hubs as laboratories for regional solutions. Platforms like AJOL, DOAJ, SciELO, and Redalyc serve as examples of scholarly communication innovation. Gungula highlighted Angola’s progress with its Open Access Repository and shared comparative data on regional publishing, emphasizing the importance of tailoring solutions to local realities while fostering international collaboration.
4. Advancing Open Scholarship Platforms in Africa
   • Jill Claassen showcased the African Platform for Open Scholarship, which integrates PKP’s Open Journal and Open Monograph systems. The platform supports 21 journals and over 3,000 articles while enabling unique institutional branding, smartphone compatibility, and text-to-speech features to enhance accessibility. Claassen emphasized decolonizing scholarly communication, publishing African perspectives, and building capacity through regional collaboration. Success stories include diverse textbooks and monographs that amplify marginalized voices.

Session 6: Research Assessment within a DOA Framework

1. Inequalities in Global Research Systems
   • Ana María Cetto highlighted the systemic inequities faced by researchers from countries in the South, whose contributions are undervalued. Research commodification and reliance on commercial indicators exacerbate these disparities, mirroring capitalist inequalities. Sustainable non-commercial OA requires reclaiming ownership of scholarly publishing and shifting policy frameworks to prioritize public good over profit.
2. Rethinking Research Evaluation
   • Judith Naidorf called for a paradigmatic shift in research assessment, moving beyond “papercentrism” (prioritizing publications as the sole metric of success) toward broader bibliodiversity. Emphasis on multilingualism, social sciences, humanities, and monographs could create a more inclusive and relevant evaluation landscape, particularly for non-English contexts.
3. Global Collaboration and Systemic Reform
   • Janne Pölönen underscored the importance of COARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment) in fostering global collaboration to reform assessment practices. COARA promotes principles like qualitative evaluation, multilingualism, and the decoupling journal impact factors and university rankingsfrom assessment frameworks, aiming for transparent, independent, andinclusive assessments able to recognize the linguistic and cultural diversity of Diamond OA ecosystem.
4. Understanding Research Ecosystems
   • Mosa Moshabela stressed the importance of analysing research ecosystems holistically. Institutional values, regional differences, and funding structures shape researcher behaviour. Systemic change requires aligning research incentives with societal impact and institutional missions while addressing outdated frameworks that no longer reflect contemporary values.
5. Role of Metadata and Open Infrastructure
   • Bianca Kramer highlighted the transformative potential of open metadata for equitable research assessment. Initiatives like the Barcelona Declaration promote openness as default and advocate for sustainable, inclusive infrastructures. Care must be taken not to replicate exclusionary practices through biased metadata standards.
6. Urgent Action and Systemic Change
   • Eduardo Aguado-López expressed frustration over the lack of progress despite decades of discussions. He called for immediate action to counteract the colonial legacy of mainstream databases and commercialized publishing systems. Advocating for legislative reforms and the creation of alternative models, he emphasized the urgency of dismantling entrenched power structures.
7. Collaboration and Inclusion
   • Ellen Tise emphasized the need for realistic, sustainable approaches to DOA that maximize inclusion and equity. She mentioned the disconnect between aligning research assessment practices with open access priorities and policies as one of the major challenges of research assessment in South Africa. She highlighted that there is an increasing recognition that current evaluative metrics are too narrow and are failing to fully capture the quality, utility, integrity, and diversity of research. South African initiatives like CHELSA’s national repository network and USAF’s Open Access Project show potential, but misperceptions of prestige and inequitable funding systems must be addressed.
8. Targeting Resistance Points
   • Luciana Balboa advocated for strategic engagement with stakeholders resistant to DOA principles. Her study revealed the dominance of metrics in research evaluation and their discriminatory effects, particularly in upper-middle-income countries. Institutions should focus on policies aligned with their specific missions and contexts.

Session 8: Developing a Broad DOA Framework for Research Assessment

The facilitators from various breakaway groups shared their reports. The discussions centred around creating a comprehensive framework for DOA within the context of research assessment.

Group 1 (Spanish feedback)
Facilitator highlighted the positive potential of redirecting research funding to DOA, noting that it could also benefit disciplines previously excluded. Facilitator emphasized the need to make the community contributing to DOA more visible.

Group 2 (Spanish feedback)
Facilitator’s feedback touched on several critical issues, including the discrepancy between government policies on innovation and their practical application. Facilitator noted the tensions within evaluation committees and how these tensions affect financial remuneration for researchers. There was also mention of the need to reconsider compensatory activities that do not involve editorial work. Facilitator expressed optimism about an ideal scenario in which researchers could focus on more impactful fields, leading to a general improvement in research quality.

Group 3 (French feedback)
Facilitator presented feedback from a French-speaking group, including participants from France and Madagascar. Facilitator shared concerns about the varying standards for journal assessment in different countries, particularly regarding journals categorized as “C”. The group also discussed the values of equity, fostering local initiatives, and improving the quality of publications. They advocated for the recognition of journals from diverse regions.

Group 4 (Portuguese feedback)
Facilitators discussed five key strategies. They emphasized the importance of researchers understanding the benefits of the DOA model. They also touched on both micro and macro-political factors influencing research practices.

Group 5 (English feedback)
Facilitator shared insights from an English-speaking group that focused on key issues such as the conflation of impact factor with prestige and the lack of support for early career researchers. They critiqued the bias towards the Global North, particularly in editorial board composition, and raised questions about the credibility and locality of research. The group concluded that a broad and inclusive framework could support alternative ways of knowing, as highlighted in the summit’s keynote speeches.

Group 6 (English feedback – Group 2)
This group emphasized the need to understand the specific needs of different research communities. They proposed recognizing the quality standards developed by these communities and assessing research based on those locally defined qualities. They also discussed the pushback from individuals who benefit from the current system and the challenges posed by inadequate policies and infrastructure.

Group 7 (English feedback – Group 3)
Facilitator spoke about the importance of incentivizing researchers to publish in DOA journals. Facilitator argued that such incentives would not only enhance recognition for DOA but also encourage researchers to rethink their values and priorities. The group also discussed reallocating funding to support this shift.

Reflections and takeaways  

The summit discussions centred around several core themes emphasizing the transformation of the academic ecosystem, especially in relation to open science and open access (DOA). Key takeaways include:

1. Epistemic Justice and Reframing Narratives: A strong call for decolonizing research, with an emphasis on amplifying marginalized voices and challenging colonial biases in academic publishing.
2. Legitimacy and Citizen Engagement: Open science must be driven not just by institutions but also by active citizen involvement, ensuring disadvantaged groups have a voice in knowledge creation and dissemination.
3. Historical Contexts in Open Access: Open access should be understood as a matter of power and privilege, addressing historical inequalities in research access.
4. Sustainability and Equity: The financial sustainability of open access publishing must ensure equity, with transparent agreements supporting long-term, culturally inclusive publishing infrastructures.
5. Exclusion through Publishing Models: The commercialization of academic publishing, particularly through pay-to-publish models and metric-driven evaluations, perpetuates exclusion and reinforces systemic inequalities.
6. Global Access as a Right: Open science is framed as a human right, with a call for a shift away from profit-driven publishing to a model that benefits humanity and prioritizes equitable access.
7. Addressing Global Inequities: The financial burden of publishing, particularly for researchers in the Global South, highlights the need for support for local knowledge and journals to promote more inclusive access.
8. Collaborative Infrastructure for Sustainability: Building non-commercial, sustainable publishing infrastructure is vital for ensuring that open access remains grounded in equity and social justice.
9. Reimagining Research Assessment: Research evaluation systems need to evolve from a “papercentric” model to one that values diverse contributions, especially from underrepresented regions.
10. Urgency for Reform: There is a pressing need for systemic change in research assessment and publishing practices to dismantle colonial legacies and promote inclusive, equitable academic structures.

Forum discussions: 14^th December

The discussions centered around strategic planning, collaboration, and leveraging existing resources to further open initiatives:

1. Roadmap and Strategy Development: The group emphasized the importance of drafting roadmaps by the end of February, with input from all participants to ensure collaborative and inclusive strategies. It was suggested that regional networks from the AAU be used as models for developing future plans, with a focus on diversity, equity, and sustainability.
2. Collaboration and Integration: There was a focus on integrating various stakeholders, including library consortia, researchers, academics, and publishers, ensuring that all parties are engaged and can see their roles and contributions. Regional cooperation was also encouraged, with examples of successful open science networks shared.
3. Leveraging Existing Infrastructure: National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) already in place in several African countries were recognized as valuable resources for advancing open science. The group agreed to incorporate open science topics into NREN annual meetings, building on past successes in combining infrastructure with open access policies.
4. Challenges and Opportunities: The need for local capacity-building and the establishment of independent networks was stressed. Open science programs should also focus on enhancing research visibility, institutional promotion, and community social impact.
5. Naming and Positioning the Coalition: The coalition’s name should reflect inclusivity and the broad interests of all stakeholders, ensuring it resonates with diverse groups such as consortia, academics, and researchers.
6. Engagement with Publishers: There was a consensus on the need for collective action in engaging with publishers to advocate for fair and equitable open access policies.

Financial contributors

Notable outcomes

• Launch of the Toluca-Cape Town Declaration (see Appendix 1)
• Formation of African Coalition of Library Consortia (see Appendix 2 ToRs)
• Publications of a collection of essays – outcome of the DKIS conference. The book will be launched in February 2025

Commitment

• Creation of African Forum for the Advancement of Diamond Open Access
• To place on the agenda of the leadership of African academic institutions on the adoption of DOA
• Collaborative Agreement on Advancing Diamond Open Access Between Redalyc and AAU/UCT (to be explored)

Appendix 1