In April 2022, there were assertions made in College and Research Libraries News about the betrayal of Africa by the openness movement. The focus was on the assertion that every time a silver lining appears on the horizon, it is swiftly snuffed out by the global north, whose reimagining of what is championed as progressive open access models resulted only in further retrogression for Africa.

The rain clouds have passed, and the desert remains parched. When open access first appeared on the horizon, Africa ran to the hills, hailing OA as the long-awaited saviour for active participation in the knowledge ecosystem - the knowledge rain for a parched knowledge region. The dissipation of the clouds came with the APC model, exacerbated by systemic biases in the global north dominated publishing ecosystem, which brought back the despair. The drifting rain clouds renewed the research ‘parchness’ and the long-standing problems of a loss of ownership, diminished dignity, and unequal participation in the scholarly ecosystem.

Our Latin American colleagues quietly cultivated their own rain through diamond open access. The model blossomed, not in the shadow of commercial giants but in the soil of community ownership, transformation, inclusivity and cooperation. As transformative agreements in the global north began haemorrhaging support, the global north sought refuge in the success of the diamond OA model being rolled out in Latin America. The helicoptering of the diamond model from Latin America to Europe did not always carry with it the sense of communityism bringing forth a revised version of diamond open access. The Ubuntuism of diamond OA was untangled and discarded. In its place emerged the reimagined not-for-profit version of diamond open access: a model destined to resurrect the betrayal of the earlier versions of open access.

The hope for drenching knowledge rains for Africa hangs in the balance: the hope of nurturing a reinvigorated African research ecosystem and support for the next generation of scholars hangs by a slender thread. This thread can only be strengthened if Africa develops its own narrative about diamond open access, ensuring contextual definition of diamond so that those knowledge clouds do not drift away. At the centre of this narrative is the acknowledgement of the persistence of knowledge poverty and the need to accelerate its eradication. The African academy needs to take ownership of disseminating its scholarship by developing a model that rejects commercial capture and affirms knowledge as a public good. Through such a definition, Africa can secure control over its intellectual output and ensure that its research agenda serves its people.

There is a high degree of synergy between the concepts of non-commercialization, communityism, and public good. At the centre is the imperative for the academy to reclaim its scholarship through an academy-led approach. A simple unpacking of the concept academy-led demonstrates the extent to which the academy has, over time, ceded ownership and control of its knowledge production and dissemination. It also highlights the urgency of restoring scholarly autonomy, reaffirming the academy’s role as the custodian of knowledge created for and with its communities, rather than for commercial gain. Academy-led also gives one the sense scholarly communication must be anchored in values that prioritise equity, inclusivity, and collective benefit.

It may be argued that the difference between non-commercialization and not-for-profit the is one of semantics. For us in Africa it is seismic. One must ask: ‘how many African institutions can afford subscriptions to not-for-profit suppliers?’ The currency that Africa uses to engage with these distributors of knowledge is the begging bowl – this dependency syndrome consolidates the worst form of colonialism, that is, knowledge colonialism.

Knowledge colonialism shapes how we think, how we research, and how we imagine the future. It is a form of domination that seeps into the mind and perpetuates current dependency narratives.

I draw on UNESCO’s definition of diamond open access (DOA) to articulate the difference between non-commercialization and not-for-profit. UNESCO pronounces that DOA “is a community-driven, non-commercial model of scholarly publishing that removes financial barriers for authors and readers”. It goes on to affirm that “publications are freely accessible online, with neither subscription fees for readers nor article processing charges (APCs) for authors”. This model is often funded by academic institutions, governments, or non-profit organisations, focusing on equity, inclusivity, and accessibility. (https://www.unesco.org/en/diamond-open-access).

As soon as commercialization becomes part of the model, knowledge becomes a commodity and by default loses its communityism, equity and inclusivity. There are many global north persons who will argue that the commercial element is used for, amongst others, cost-recovery, service fees, or market-based operations. However, this ‘financial transaction’ based model operates within market logics and will inevitably marginalise communities with fewer resources, even if unintentionally.

The difference between non-commercialization and not-for-profit is, for Africa, seismic. Non-commercialization keeps the clouds above us and when they break, the rain falls freely, replenishing a research landscape long kept parched by external control. It is my posit that not-for-profit risks repackaging the same old narratives, consolidating knowledge colonialism. The moment finances are embedded in the model, be it for ‘cost recovery’ or ‘service fees’ the rain becomes a commodity again, with Africa left standing with the begging bowl beneath clouds that will never burst.

The future of diamond open access will only drench Africa if Africa’s definition is grounded in Ubuntuism, communityism, and a definitive commitment to the public good. The Second Global Summit on DOA and its significant outcome, the Toluca–Cape Town Declaration, is immersed in non-commercialization and condemns any financial transactions for access to and dissemination of knowledge.

Africa must define and own a truly liberating, non-commercial Diamond Open Access model, culminating in a research landscape capable of addressing its challenges.

Authors

Reggie Raju
Director: Research and Learning Services UCT Libraries

Felicia Nkrumah Kuagbedzi
Acting Coordinator - ICT, Communications and Knowledge Management
Association of African Universities (AAU)