Will "Diamond" Open Access Redress Global Knowledge Inequity? Power, Visibility, and the Politics of Naming

In this presentation, I ask whether “Diamond Open Access” can redress global knowledge inequity, arguing that no-fee open access is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge equity. I propose a structural lens that centers on power, visibility, and governance: who has the authority to set research standards, define “quality,” shape evaluation, and steer reform agendas. Drawing on concerns of Plan S déjà vu, I suggest that well-intentioned global reforms can function as universal templates while reproducing asymmetries in accumulated resources and norm-setting power. This is especially glaring when South-led, public-mission ecosystems such as Redalyc and AmeliCA are positioned as “inspiration” rather than agenda-setting centers.

The talk foregrounds bibliodiversity and epistemic inclusion as key equity outcomes, not performative add-ons: sustaining a plurality of journals, languages, platforms, publics, and knowledge traditions without forcing convergence toward what is easiest to standardize and count. To make these power dynamics concrete, I use the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) as an example of “invisible” governance infrastructure controlled by the same commercial publishers who dominate the global publishing system. While often framed as a neutral technical object, DOI participation functions as a passport to legibility in discovery and evaluation pipelines, with compliance burdens (e.g., metadata labour, technical integration, maintenance, and, importantly, fees) producing unevenly resourced outcomes and visibility. Alternative Persistent Identifiers (PID) exist, including open, community-governed systems such as the Archival Resource Key (ARKs), highlighting that identifier choices are governance choices that are often overlooked.

I conclude with an equity-oriented design consideration—C³ Open Access (community-governed, commons-based, care-centred)—and a call to treat no-fee, non-commercial, community-governed OA as a redistribution project: shifting decision power and durable resources while protecting bibliodiversity and epistemic justice as the foundation of an inclusive knowledge commons.