Alternative publishing models

The alternatives to the traditional journal model are a spectrum; from small changes to the traditional publishing system to completely original systems for scientific dissemination. The below summary of the different alternative academic publishing models is inspired by work from various institutions, including Knowledge Exchange.

1. Incremental open science

Traditional journals remain central to the academic ecosystem, as is peer academic review. The academic peer review system remains mostly unchanged in this model. It requires that academics are contacted to review submitted manuscripts before publication, and mostly do not get payment for this work. Academic outputs are still mostly journal articles. When 'open access' publishing is referred to by mainstream academia and the big academic publishers, it is this model they are referring to. There are several different 'flavours' of open access publishing:-

Gold open access
Immediate open access via publisher platforms.

Articles are made freely available on the publisher’s website at the point of publication. However, it is not 'free', in the sense that no-one pays; money does change hands, usually from a research institution like a university to the academic publisher. 'Article processing charges' (APCs)may be paid by authors, institutions, or funders, but it must be paid. This has a huge advantage for non-institutional readers and scholars; they are able to access an article freely, and the article is returned by search strings in scholarly search sites. While it provides immediate access, it shifts costs from readers to authors and institutions and can reinforce inequalities between well-funded and under-resourced researchers. For many institutions it is simply not possible to pay these APCs, and therefore a two-tier system is created. Readers are only able to access research from well-funded institutions, almost invariably from rich, Western countries, and from fields and research topics that are interested in funding open research. Where institutions and funding bodies specifically set aside money to fund open publishing, this inevitably requires a cost/benefit analysis from the funder. It is never possible to fund all the research that should be funded, since money has to be set aside to ensure it fulfils an 'open research' requirement. Where authors do research 'on spec' as opposed to following a funders' research topic, it may require considerable bureaucratic time and energy to apply for the funding required to make the article 'open'.

Green open access
Self-archiving alongside traditional publishing.

Authors publish in a conventional subscription journal but also deposit a version of their manuscript (this can be the 'accepted' ¹ version, or another version) in an institutional or subject repository. Access to the pre-print repository version may be delayed by an 'embargo period' imposed by the publisher. The journal version itself typically remains behind a paywall. This model is low-cost for authors and institutions, but creates fragmented access; it's often difficult to find the repository (free) version and easy to find the paywalled version. Scholarly search will often not return the pre-print version and there is little way to discover if a pre-print version actually exists except by discovering the pre-print version by accident. There may be 'version confusion' between the pre-print and journal published version.

Diamond open access
No fees for readers or authors.

Both access and publication are free. Costs are covered by institutions, consortia, or public funding. These journals are often community-led or non-profit and aim to remove financial barriers on both sides. The main challenge is sustainability, as they rely on continued institutional or public support rather than commercial revenue.

Hybrid open access
Subscription journals with optional open access.

Traditional subscription journals offer authors the option to make individual articles open access by paying an APC. The rest of the journal content remains behind a paywall. This model has been widely criticised for “double dipping”, where publishers receive both subscription fees and APCs.

'Open access' summary

All of these models focus on access to content, not on changing how research is produced, reviewed, or structured. They largely retain the traditional journal system, including peer review processes, fixed articles, and existing incentive structures. What changes is that access improves and some transparency increases. The journal prestige system, the fixed 'version of record', and slow publication cycles remain the same as the traditional journal publsihing model.

2. 'Extended' journal model

Journals still exist, but publishing becomes faster and more iterative. Practices include preprints followed by journal publication, open or post-publication peer review, versioning through updated papers, and registered reports. What changes is faster dissemination, more transparency in review, and some shift from impact toward methodological quality. The limitations are that it is still tied to journals and career incentives. Innovation is layered on top rather than replacing the structure. This is where most “alternative platforms” currently sit.

3. Disaggregated publishing model

Journal functions are split apart: dissemination, peer review, and curation. Practices include publish-review-curate instead of journal gatekeeping, overlay journals that curate preprints, independent peer review platforms, and community-led curation. What changes is that publication is no longer controlled by a single venue. Peer review becomes separate and visible. Multiple versions and evaluations can coexist. The main implication is that this weakens the journal as gatekeeper and shifts power toward communities. This is a transitional model between reform and transformation.

4. Continuous or versioned research model

There is no fixed final paper. Outputs can be updated over time. Practices include versioning with numbered releases such as v1 and v2, living articles or living reviews, and continuous publication. What changes is that research becomes iterative and correctable. Mistakes and updates are normalised. The tension is that this clashes with citation systems and evaluation systems, which expect fixed outputs. This aligns strongly with reproducibility and transparency goals.

5. Modular publishing model

This abandons the article as the main unit. Research is split into parts such as hypotheses, methods, data, results, and interpretations. Practices include publishing each component separately, linking them into a research chain, and enabling independent review of each part. What changes is that no narrative packaging is required. Negative results and partial work become publishable. Credit becomes more granular. The implications are that incentives and authorship change radically, and science becomes more machine-readable and reusable. This is the most transformative but least adopted model.