To answer these questions, it helps to look closer at the current publishing landscape. For decades, academic publishing has followed a familiar script: Conduct research → write a paper → submit to a journal → (wait) → peer review → (revise) → maybe get accepted → finally, publish. Yet, this traditional model is increasingly under scrutiny, as several structural issues have become difficult to ignore:

1. Limited access. Many journals are locked behind paywalls, excluding researchers without well-funded institutions or from lower-income countries (Piwowar et al., 2018).
2. Costs shift to authors. Open access is often seen as a remedy for equity issues, but it carries substantial article processing charges (APCs), especially for high-impact journals (Borrego, 2023). Waivers are often presented as a fix, but they fail to create true author equity (Greussing et al., 2020; Rouhi et al., 2022).
3. Filtered content. Studies with “positive” or novel results are more likely to be published, whereas null findings are less likely to make it through (Ekmekci, 2017; Fanelli, 2010), and replications are rarely encouraged (Martin & Clarke, 2017).
4. Narrow credit. The system rewards polished papers and first/last authorship in high impact journals. Less traditional output, such as cleaning data, writing code, or designing a protocol, is less credited.
5. Opaque peer review. Traditional peer review has been criticised in its function as a quality control, and it has been pointed out that it can slow down dissemination, happens behind closed doors, at the very end of the process, with little reward for reviewers (Kochetkov, 2024; Mastroianni, 2022).

The Rise of Alternative Models

In response, research communities and institutions have developed infrastructures that aim to address these shortcomings (Trueblood et al., 2025). A 2023 scoping study by Knowledge Exchange identified 45 platforms that consider themselves part of this “alternative” ecosystem (Lutz et al., 2023), differing in mission, audience, and structure. While the growing diversity is promising, it can also be overwhelming. Here, we map some key approaches to alternative publishing and introduce some specific platforms.¹

1. Open Repositories

Open repositories allow researchers to share their output freely: online accessible for anyone and (often) without costs. They support a wide range of materials, including preprints, datasets, code, protocols, and more, and frequently issue permanent Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), ensuring permanent access.

Researchers can use open repositories to complement traditional publications, make paywalled articles accessible², or as standalone, citable outputs. Open repositories can be more discipline-specific (e.g., PsychArchives for psychology-related output) or cover a broader range of disciplines, as the Open Science Framework, Zenodo, Knowledge Commons Works or Figshare. For more details, please see the full table on Aternative Outputs and Patforms. 

2. Modular Publishing Platforms

Modular publishing platforms share some similarities with open-access repositories in that they support the publication of research outputs beyond the final manuscript. However, they go a step further by encouraging researchers to break their work into smaller, discrete components and publish these modules throughout the research process. Each module is a standalone, citable unit, linked in a chronological chain and assigned its own DOI. This structure allows contributors to receive individual credit for their specific roles in the research and allows for immediate knowledge dissemination. For more details, please see the full table on Aternative Outputs and Patforms.

3. Alternative Peer Review Systems

Other alternative platforms and journals are rethinking traditional peer review models. Rather than requiring peer review before publication, many now adopt post-publication peer review, allowing research to be shared rapidly while still undergoing evaluation. Another model is the registered report, where peer review happens before data collection. Some platforms go further by publishing peer reviews openly and making them citable scholarly outputs. Other examples beyond those listed below include eLife (for life sciences and biomedicine) and MetaROR (for metaresearch). For more details, please see the full table on Aternative Outputs and Patforms. 

4. Diamond Open Access Journals

Diamond open access journals are entirely free, for both authors and readers.³ They remove all paywalls and APCs, making publishing accessible regardless of funding or institutional support. While often following traditional journal structures, some also incorporate innovative features like open peer review or modular components. For more details, please see the full table on Aternative Outputs and Patforms. 

Practical Considerations

With many options available, choosing the most appropriate platform depends on several factors:

• What kind of output are you sharing? (e.g., preprint, dataset, analysis script, protocol)
• Do you need peer review, and if so, what kind? (pre-publication, post-publication, open, or registered reports)
• What are the licensing and attribution options?
• Are there any costs involved?
• Is the platform indexed and citable?

Along this way, it can be helpful to experiment with different models. For instance:

• Upload preprints and datasets to OSF or Zenodo
• Use ResearchEquals to publish a protocol
• Try submitting a preprint for PCI review
• Explore diamond open access journals that match your disciplin

Reflection from Practice

We talked to some scholars from Leiden University about their experiences with alternative publishing. Dr. Berthe Jansen, Assistant Professor of Tibetan Studies, uses the Knowledge Commons platform⁴ (former ‘humanities commons’) to host her project website - introducing her team, sharing updates, and posting blog entries (see here). She highlights how easy it was to set up and make it look professional, even with limited programming skills. For her, it acts like a project “business card”; something she links in her email signature so others can quickly see what she is working on. Next to that, she values having a space to share ideas that are not fully formed yet, including posting thoughts and questions that might invite feedback from others.

“But even if this doesn’t happen, thinking about my research in this way is still very beneficial; it helps me see the bigger picture”, she says.

Similarly, Dr. Peter Bisschop, Professor of Sanskrit and Ancient Cultures of South Asia, built his project website on Knowledge Commons after moving from PubPub due to a change in their business model (see here). He found the transfer smooth and appreciates being able to upload materials that would not necessarily fit into traditional publications. Building on that experience, he and a colleague are now setting up Purana Media, a new diamond open-access journal for disseminating modes of cultural production encompassed by the Sanskrit term purāṇa. The idea is to create a hybrid space that combines elements of traditional journals with the openness and flexibility of blogs, including contributions from non-academic voices. For setting up platforms like this, Dr. Bisschop emphasised, it helps to have a team:

“You need enthusiastic colleagues who are willing to do it with you.”

Dr. Bjørn Peare Bartholdy, now a Data Steward at TU Delft, explored ResearchEquals during his PhD in Archaeological Science at Leiden University (see here). He appreciates how the platform allowed him to share different stages of his research and link them together, even when some pieces (like his code) were hosted elsewhere. Looking back, he feels there was a missed opportunity in his education when it came to alternative publishing. Open access was mentioned briefly, but there was not much guidance about sharing data, methods, or other outputs beyond the final publication. He believes that senior researchers have a key role to play in normalising alternative publishing practices by submitting high-quality work to diamond journals and showing what is possible. Despite the challenges, Bjørn is optimistic:

“We’re heading in the right direction. But we need to make these practices part of everyday research - and for that, we need people who are willing to step out of their comfort zones.”

Conclusion

While alternative publishing models might not be a panacea, they offer important correctives to many of the structural issues found in traditional academic publishing, including barriers to access, cost inequities, narrow credit systems, and slow, opaque peer review. As researchers, we do not need to adopt every new model, but exploring available options can help find platforms that align with our values and support a more transparent, inclusive research culture. With rising publication costs and shrinking research budgets, these nonprofit, open approaches may no longer be just alternatives; they may be key to building a more sustainable and equitable research ecosystem.

____________________________________________

¹ This is not intended to serve as a selection tool but rather as a starting point for exploring different ways of knowledge dissemination.

² Check for restrictions, like embargo periods or limits on which version of the manuscript can be archived (see JISC).

³ Please note that the categories we used can be fluid and some of the previously mentioned models (e.g., the Peer Community In Journal) also fall under the umbrella of diamond open access.

⁴ In the ‘open access repositories’ section, we introduce Knowledge Commons Works, which is the repository of the Knowledge Commons network. Here, we refer to another tool from the Knowledge Commons network for building WordPress websites.

Share on Facebook Share by Bluesky Share on LinkedIn Share by WhatsApp Share by Mastodon