Open access publishing was originally championed to make scientific results freely available and to reduce the escalating costs of subscription-based journals. The Budapest Open Access Initiative of 2002 set the stage for this shift, encouraging funders and universities to support models where authors pay article processing charges in exchange for unrestricted public access. However, the implementation of these policies has been marred by what critics describe as naivety. Science funders and libraries have pushed for gold open access without establishing strict quality criteria, creating an environment where profit maximization often takes precedence over scientific rigor. This has allowed predatory publishers to exploit the system, offering rapid publication and high impact factors in exchange for fees, regardless of the quality of the work.

The bibliometric data from the field of ecology and organismal botany between 2014 and 2022 illustrates the scale of this shift. While the total number of articles in these fields increased by 105%, the distribution of this growth was highly uneven. Society-owned journals saw a modest 13% increase, and serious publisher-owned journals grew by 47%. In stark contrast, predatory open access journals experienced a staggering 1,754% increase in article numbers, with an average annual growth rate of 44.1%. By 2022, these predatory journals accounted for 37% of the total publication output in the analyzed categories, up from just 4% in 2014. This massive shift indicates a significant migration of scientific content away from established, society-controlled venues toward commercial outlets with lower quality thresholds.

The economic incentives driving this trend are rooted in the structure of gold open access funding. Unlike subscription models, where high fees are justified by high-quality content and prestige, gold open access models often charge similar fees regardless of the journal’s quality. This creates a powerful economic incentive for publishers to lower rejection rates and publish more articles, as each additional publication generates profit. The study estimates that the profit margins for publisher-owned open access journals can range from 74% to 81%, compared to approximately 29% for society-owned journals published by specialized publishers. These high profits are generated largely through the unpaid labor of editors and reviewers, who volunteer their time to maintain the appearance of peer review while publishers capture the financial upside.

The consequences of this model extend beyond financial inefficiency to the core integrity of science. Predatory journals often employ practices that undermine the peer review process, such as accepting papers after a single round of revision, using fake or unqualified editors, and engaging in impact factor engineering through inflated self-citations. A famous experiment by Science in 2013 demonstrated that 157 of 255 open access journals accepted and would have published a fake paper containing obvious scientific nonsense. More recently, a study found that a fabricated scientist with no valid credentials was accepted as an editor by 33% of journals on Beall’s List of predatory publishers. These incidents highlight the vulnerability of the current system and the ease with which low-quality or fraudulent content can enter the scientific record.

The role of science funders and libraries in perpetuating this problem cannot be overlooked. By providing substantial funds for article processing charges without differentiating between high-quality and low-quality journals, these institutions have inadvertently subsidized the growth of predatory publishing. The study argues that this approach is not only inefficient but also inequitable, as it places a financial burden on researchers from less wealthy countries and institutions. The current system effectively creates a new barrier to entry, where the ability to publish is determined by institutional budget rather than scientific merit. This shift contradicts the original mission of open access to democratize scientific knowledge and instead reinforces existing inequalities in the global research landscape.

To address these challenges, the study proposes two primary solutions. The first involves reforming the gold open access system by linking the payment of article processing charges to strict quality criteria. This could include differentiating maximum payment amounts based on factors such as rejection rates, the number of peer review rounds, and the ownership structure of the journal. Journals owned by academic societies, where a significant portion of the profit is reinvested into scientific activities, would receive higher support. This approach would redirect funds away from predatory publishers and toward venues that prioritize scientific integrity and community benefit. It would also encourage publishers to maintain higher quality standards to justify their fees, aligning economic incentives with the goals of the scientific community.

The second solution is a more radical shift toward diamond open access, where neither authors nor readers pay any fees. In this model, the costs of publishing are covered by public funding directed to academic societies or institutions, which then manage the journals. This would eliminate the conflict of interest inherent in gold open access, where publishers profit from quantity rather than quality. Diamond open access would also remove financial barriers for authors from low- and middle-income countries, ensuring that scientific publishing is accessible to all. The study suggests that this model could be implemented through contracts between science funders and academic societies, with payments based on agreed-upon quality and cost criteria. While this approach requires a significant change in funding strategies, it offers a path toward a more equitable and sustainable publishing ecosystem.

The transition to a healthier publishing model will require concerted efforts from all stakeholders in the scientific community. Authors, reviewers, and editors must be more discerning in their choices, prioritizing society-owned journals and avoiding predatory outlets. Science funders and libraries must take a more active role in shaping the publishing landscape, using their financial power to promote quality and integrity. The study emphasizes that the current trajectory is unsustainable and that the growing volume of low-quality publications is already making it more difficult for researchers to find relevant and reliable studies. By implementing the proposed reforms, the scientific community can restore trust in the publishing process and ensure that public funds are used effectively to advance knowledge and innovation.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a publishing system that serves the public interest, rather than the profit motives of a few large corporations. This requires a fundamental rethinking of how scientific publishing is funded and managed. The evidence presented in this study makes a compelling case for change, highlighting the urgent need for action to protect the integrity of science and the efficient use of public resources. As the open access movement continues to evolve, it is crucial that its leaders and supporters remain committed to the core principles of transparency, equity, and quality. Only by addressing the structural flaws in the current system can we ensure that scientific publishing continues to fulfill its vital role in the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society.

Subject of Research: The impact of gold open access funding policies on the rise of predatory journals and the proposed shift to diamond open access models in scientific publishing.

Article Title: Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders

Article References: Dengler, J. (2023). Priorities in journal selection for authors, reviewers, editors, librarians and science funders. Vegetation Classification and Survey, 4, 1219-229. https://doi.org/10.3897/vcs.110296

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/VCS.110296

Keywords: open access, predatory journals, scientific publishing, article processing charges, diamond open access, bibliometrics, ecology, publishing ethics, science funders, journal impact factor, Priorities, journal

A new open-source project published in the journal SoftwareX aims to change that. Developed by Yasiel Pérez Vera, the software presents an ecosystem of three interoperable plugins for Open Journal Systems, the widely used open-source platform that powers tens of thousands of scholarly journals worldwide. Rather than building yet another DOI workflow, the ecosystem implements two alternative persistent identifier schemes that carry no recurring registration costs: the Archival Resource Key, known as ARK, and the Persistent Uniform Resource Locator, or PURL. Both schemes offer decentralized, openly governed approaches to persistent identification. ARK identifiers support long-term stewardship through locally managed namespaces and resolver services, while PURLs provide stable redirection mechanisms that preserve identifier persistence independently of changes in the physical location of resources. The design philosophy is explicitly complementary rather than competitive: the ecosystem is not intended to replace DOI infrastructure, but to give journals that cannot sustain registration fees a flexible, sustainable alternative they can manage directly.

The software engineering story behind the project is as interesting as its economics. Conventional implementations of persistent identifiers in publishing platforms tend to tightly couple two very different responsibilities: generating identifiers and resolving them, meaning the act of translating an identifier into the current location of the resource it names. The new ecosystem deliberately separates these concerns. Identifier generation is handled by two plugins, one for ARKs and one for PURLs, each of which extends the native PubIdPlugin interface provided by Open Journal Systems. Identifier resolution, by contrast, is delegated to a third, independent component called the Resolver Gateway Plugin. This gateway receives incoming requests, identifies which identifier scheme is being used, retrieves the associated publication metadata from the platform’s database, and redirects the user to the appropriate resource. Because the gateway is generic, it operates independently of any specific identifier scheme, which means new identifier technologies can be added in the future simply by writing an additional publication identifier plugin that reuses the existing resolution infrastructure.

This architectural decision carries real practical consequences. Because all three components rely exclusively on the official plugin framework and extension mechanisms of Open Journal Systems, no modifications to the platform’s source code are required. Journals can install, update, or remove each component independently using the standard plugin management facilities, and the installation order of the plugins does not affect functionality. The ARK Plugin generates identifiers based on configurable Name Assigning Authority Numbers, object type prefixes, and local identifier patterns, storing them within the standard metadata model so they interact seamlessly with existing export, indexing, and publication services. Validation mechanisms prevent duplicate assignments and guarantee uniqueness within each journal namespace. The PURL Plugin follows the same principles, maintaining persistent identifiers separately from publication URLs so administrators can move content to new locations without invalidating existing citations. Crucially, both plugins can coexist within the same journal installation without conflict.

For journal administrators, the practical workflow is deliberately lightweight. To issue ARK identifiers, an institution first obtains a Name Assigning Authority Number from the ARK Alliance through an online registration form, a process that requires no fee. Once the namespace and resolver configuration are in place, the administrator configures the plugin through the standard settings interface, specifying the namespace, identifier pattern, target publication objects, and resolver URL. For PURLs, the administrator selects or operates a PURL resolution service and configures the corresponding namespace and generation policy. After that initial setup, everything happens automatically: whenever an article, issue, galley, or supplementary file is published through the normal editorial workflow, the appropriate plugin generates and validates an identifier, stores it in the publication metadata, and exposes it as an actionable link. Editors never need to touch identifier infrastructure again, and readers who click an identifier are transparently redirected to the current location of the content.

The validation of the software was conducted with unusual rigor for a publishing tool. The ecosystem was deployed on a dedicated server configured to replicate a typical institutional publishing infrastructure, hosting three scientific journals comprising approximately thirty published issues and 360 research articles. The functional validation protocol covered installation, configuration, automatic identifier generation, metadata persistence, and resolution through the gateway, with every test repeated thirty times under identical conditions. All twelve functional test cases passed consistently, and the validation processed 1,181 publication objects across every supported entity type, including journals, issues, articles, galleys, and supplementary files, without a single plugin failure or manual intervention. The tests also confirmed that all three plugins could operate simultaneously, demonstrating genuine interoperability rather than isolated functionality.

Performance measurements were equally encouraging. Using Apache JMeter 5.6.3 and the Linux time utility, the researchers measured the runtime overhead introduced by identifier generation and resolution across thirty independent executions of each operation. ARK generation took a mean of 15.8 milliseconds, PURL generation 14.7 milliseconds, identifier resolution 27.4 milliseconds, and complete HTTP redirections 31.2 milliseconds, with success rates of 100 percent for generation and 99.8 percent for resolution and redirection. These latencies are low enough that identifier management remains entirely transparent to editors and readers, an essential property for software that must sit inside a live editorial workflow without slowing it down. The deployment procedure itself was reproduced from clean installations of Open Journal Systems using only the official plugin installation mechanism, with no manual database changes, satisfying reproducibility expectations aligned with the FAIR principles for research software.

Perhaps the most striking evidence of the project’s relevance comes from its adoption. At the time of evaluation, 42 scientific journals across multiple countries had already deployed the ecosystem in production, with publicly verifiable, resolvable ARK and PURL identifiers confirmed through direct inspection of journal websites and live resolution requests. This is not a laboratory prototype but software supporting real editorial workflows on three continents. A comparison with conventional persistent identifier solutions for Open Journal Systems highlights the gap it fills: existing approaches typically depend on external registration agencies such as Crossref or DataCite, usually require recurring fees, offer limited support for multiple free identifier schemes, and lack an independent resolver component. The new ecosystem requires no external registration agency, imposes no recurring costs, supports self-hosted deployment, and remains fully extensible through the standard plugin framework, all while preserving compatibility with DOI-based solutions for journals that use both.

The broader significance extends beyond any single journal’s budget. Persistent identifiers are no longer valued merely for keeping citations alive; they increasingly serve as the connective tissue linking publications, datasets, software, researchers, institutions, and funders through interoperable, machine-actionable metadata, underpinning discovery, provenance tracking, reproducibility, and long-term preservation. When thousands of journals, particularly those in the Global South and the Diamond Open Access movement, operate outside the identifier ecosystem, the entire scholarly graph develops holes. By lowering the technical and economic barriers to participation, this open-source ecosystem, released under the GNU GPL v3 license with complete documentation and versioned releases in public repositories, offers a route toward a more complete and equitable identifier infrastructure. The author outlines future work including support for additional identifier schemes, improved interoperability with external scholarly infrastructures, automated testing and continuous integration pipelines, and validation across newer platform releases and larger publishing environments, positioning the software as a sustainable, community-extensible foundation for the next generation of scholarly communication.

Subject of Research: An open-source plugin ecosystem providing free ARK and PURL persistent identifiers for Open Journal Systems scholarly publishing

Article Title: An open-source ecosystem for implementing free persistent identifiers in open journal systems

Article References: Pérez Vera, Y. (2026). An open-source ecosystem for implementing free persistent identifiers in open journal systems. SoftwareX, 36, Article 103023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2026.103023

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.softx.2026.103023

Keywords: persistent identifiers, Open Journal Systems, ARK identifiers, PURL, open access publishing, DOI alternatives, open-source software, scholarly communication, FAIR principles, resolver gateway, diamond open access, SoftwareX