In the current scientific and political discourse surrounding the transformation of the scientific publication system, significant attention is focused on Diamond Open Access (OA). Diamond OA is characterized by no charges for readers or authors and relies on monetary allowances and voluntary work. This article explores the potential and challenges of Diamond OA journals, using Germany as a case study. Two key questions are addressed: first, the current role of such journals in the scientific publication system is determined through bibliometric analysis across various disciplines. Second, an investigation is conducted to assess the sustainability of Diamond OA journals and identify associated structural problems or potential breaking points. This investigation includes an in-depth expert interview study involving 20 editors of Diamond OA journals. The empirical results are presented using a landscape map that considers two dimensions: 'monetized and gift-based completion of tasks' and 'journal team size.' The bibliometric analysis reveals a substantial number of Diamond OA journals in the social sciences and humanities, but limited adoption in other fields. The model proves effective for small to mid-sized journals, but not for larger ones. Additionally, it was found that 23 Diamond OA journals have recently discontinued their operations. The expert interviews demonstrate the diversity within the landscape and the usefulness of the two dimensions in understanding key differences. Journals in two of the four quadrants of the map exemplify sustainable conditions, while the other two quadrants raise concerns about long-term stability. These concerns include limited funding leading to a lack of division of labor and an excessive burden on highly committed members. Gift-like contributions, while appealing, also present challenges as potential donors not only decide whether to contribute but also how to contribute, potentially creating friction between the gift and the journal's requirements. Furthermore, journals in the lower right quadrant often rely on third-party funding, necessitating a transformation once the funding expires. Common pathways for sustaining operations include lobbying for funding at the journal's home institution or increasing reliance on gift-based completion of tasks. These findings underscore the need for the development of more sustainable funding models to ensure the success of Diamond OA journals.

在当前围绕科学出版系统转型的科学和政治讨论中，钻石开放获取 (OA) 备受关注。 Diamond OA 的特点是不向读者或作者收费，依靠金钱津贴和志愿工作。本文以德国为案例研究，探讨了 Diamond OA 期刊的潜力和挑战。解决了两个关键问题：首先，此类期刊在科学出版系统中的当前作用是通过跨学科的文献计量分析来确定的。其次，进行一项调查来评估 Diamond OA 期刊的可持续性，并确定相关的结构问题或潜在的突破点。这项调查包括一项深入的专家访谈研究，涉及 Diamond OA 期刊的 20 名编辑。实证结果是使用考虑两个维度的景观图来呈现的：“货币化和基于礼物的任务完成”和“期刊团队规模”。文献计量分析显示，社会科学和人文学科领域存在大量 Diamond OA 期刊，但在其他领域的采用有限。该模型对中小型期刊有效，但对大型期刊则无效。此外，还发现有 23 种 Diamond OA 期刊最近停止运营。专家访谈展示了景观的多样性以及两个维度在理解关键差异方面的有用性。地图四个象限中的两个象限中的期刊体现了可持续条件，而其他两个象限则提出了对长期稳定性的担忧。这些担忧包括资金有限导致缺乏分工以及高度忠诚的成员负担过重。类似礼物的捐款虽然很有吸引力，但也带来了挑战，因为潜在的捐赠者不仅决定是否捐款，还决定如何捐款，这可能会在礼物和期刊的要求之间造成摩擦。此外，右下象限的期刊往往依赖第三方资助，一旦资助到期就需要转型。维持运营的常见途径包括游说期刊所在机构提供资金或增加对基于礼物的任务完成的依赖。这些发现强调需要开发更可持续的资助模式，以确保 Diamond OA 期刊的成功。