Beyond Green and Gold: changing the language of open publishing

Published on

For many years, open publishing has been described through colours of Green, Gold, Hybrid, Diamond, and Bronze. For those working in the space, these terms are familiar and easy to say. For authors and researchers, I would question how useful they are, especially for early career authors.

At University of Galway, we have been changing the way we talk about open. Rather than asking authors to start by understanding a set of colours, our guidance increasingly begins with Routes to Open describing what the author needs to do, where the open version will be available, what rights are involved, and whether payment is required.

Currently OpenAlex and its Community Advisory Board are consulting on a more fundamental revision of open-access classification, potentially replacing the colour categories with a system based on access, location, and licence [1,2].


Why we started changing the language

The problem we perceived is in what colour terms communicate to an author. In 2025, our own Research Publishing guides used Green, Gold, and Diamond in a conventional way. The new policy established an important principle: authors should aim to publish in appropriate, domain-leading outlets while also making their work openly available through an appropriate route.[3]
Therefore, the key point is that the quality and suitability of a publication outlet are separate from the way an output becomes open.
We asked whether the colour terminology was helping authors make that distinction. One concern is that colours can imply a quality hierarchy that doesn't actually exist. "Gold" has an obvious association with a premium or superior option. "Diamond" can sound more exclusive again. More problematic, by comparison, is that "Green" can sound like an alternative or secondary form of publishing or open.

That is not what those terms formally mean. A repository route is not a lower-quality form of scholarship than publisher-hosted open. An author can publish in a highly regarded subscription journal and, through Rights Retention and deposit of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM), make the work immediately available through the institutional repository. Paying an APC does not make the research better, nor does publisher-hosted open access establish the journal's scholarly quality.[3,4]
Our primary concern is communication. If terminology creates an avoidable suggestion that one access mechanism represents a higher level of scholarly quality, it should not be the starting point for author guidance.

From colours to Routes to Open

We have moved towards descriptive route labels, while retaining established colour terms where they remain useful. Our current guidance leads with routes such as repository-led, APC-free and publisher-hosted open access. More detailed guidance can still explain how these relate to Green, Diamond, Gold, Hybrid and national Read and Publish agreements.[4,5]

This is a deliberate attempt to control the language around the author decision.
  • "Repository-led" tells the author what route is being used.
  • "APC-free" makes an important economic characteristic explicit.
  • "Library/IReL Read and Publish" explains why publisher-hosted open access may be available without an individual APC.
  • "Publisher-hosted" describes where the open version will appear.
For us, the preferred sequence is increasingly: Choose an appropriate publication outlet based on quality and suitability. Then identify the appropriate Route to Open. Quality depends on the publication outlet and is independent of the Route to Open.

OpenAlex is solving a different problem

The current OpenAlex work should not be confused with our local author-facing terminology change.

OpenAlex is addressing a classification and data-model problem. Since 2018, Unpaywall and then OpenAlex have assigned works categories including Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and Closed. Those categories are now embedded in bibliometric databases, funder compliance systems and institutional and national reporting.[1]

The OpenAlex working group identifies several limitations. The colours were designed largely around journal articles and fit less comfortably with outputs such as preprints, books, theses, datasets and software. Some classifications depend partly on journal-level characteristics rather than what is true of the individual work. Most importantly, the current scheme combines different concepts: whether a work is accessible, where it is accessible, licensing, and aspects of publishing business models.[1,2]

The proposed framework separates three dimensions:
  • Access: whether the work is freely accessible or closed.
  • Location: whether an accessible copy is at the publisher or on another platform such as a repository.
  • Licence: whether the work has an open licence, a restrictive licence, or no clearly identifiable licence.
These dimensions could then support descriptive work-level labels such as Publisher Open, Platform Public or Closed [1,2]. Importantly, the proposal does not attempt to encode APCs, Diamond publishing, Hybrid models, transformative agreements and other business models within the work-level open-access classification. The working group argues that these need a separate, complementary taxonomy [2]. That separation is useful.

Where next?

The OpenAlex consultation remains open until 13 November 2026. Responses are due to be considered by the OpenAlex Community Advisory Board on 10 December 2026. OpenAlex has stated that nothing changes in the API or website at this stage and that, if the proposal proceeds, implementation would involve a transition period with old and new labels available side by side [1]. The change will involve planning because the colour categories are deeply embedded in scholarly communication systems and reporting. 

For author guidance, however, we do not need to wait for a new universal classification.
At University of Galway, we are already making a more modest change by keeping familiar terms where they aid interpretation, but making the Route to Open the primary concept.

The question we want authors to ask is:
Where should I publish, and what is the best route to make that work open?"
Not "Which colour of open access is best?"

The language change keeps quality, access, rights, and cost related, but as distinct decisions.

Author

Cillian Joy is Head of Research Services at the University of Galway Library. His work focuses particularly on open publishing infrastructure, rights retention, repositories, and improving how researchers navigate scholarly publishing.

AI use: The author wrote the argument and analysis. Generative AI supported revisions for clarity and presentation. The author and peers reviewed the final wording.

References


[2] Alperin, J. P., Kramer, B., Farley, A., Church, A., van Eck, N. J., Mitchell, D., Marcum, C., Takenaka, R., Harrison, M. and Gatti, R. (2026). Recommendations for Revising the Open Access Classification System in OpenAlex. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21934115.




Comments

Post a Comment