1. The "Why" behind the
Diamond
AI: Let’s start with the elephant in
the room—or rather, the Diamond. Most high-impact journals today are leaning
heavily into APCs (Article Processing Charges), yet you’ve stuck to the Diamond
Open Access model. For an author deciding where to send their best work, what
does this 'free to read, free to publish' philosophy say about the journal's
soul?
FI: In the last years, the offer for the authors
of scientific journals where they can publish their papers with different
editorial models increased dramatically. Considering the presence in the
“market” of really good “subscription journals”, in the last two decades new
publication models became more an more popular: gold open access, where the
authors or their institutions have to pay Article Processing Charge (APC),
hybrid model, where subscription journals gives to the authors the opportunity
to make their article Open Access… paying APC,
green open access where the authors deposit a version of the paper in
public repositories, often after an embargo period, or diamond/platinum open
access, where the cost for authors and readers is 0 are only some example. The
Italian Group of Fracture decided in 2007 (almost twenty years ago!) to start
the publication of Fracture and Structural integrity (formerly, Frattura ed
Integrità Strutturale) as a Diamond OA journal because we strongly believed,
and we still believe, in free research, without any restrictions due to
financial constraints, or political, religious, or cultural reasons. Our
journal is open to the contribution from any country, and the financial
constraints are not a limit for a publication. A really good motivation for an
author to publish in a Diamond Open Access journal is that this publication
model offers a good compromise between high visibility and zero costs… and I
think that this is really a good reason!
2. Speed vs. rigor: the balancing
act
AI: Authors are always in a rush—we
get it. But in the world of structural integrity, a mistake in peer review
isn't just an erratum; it’s a safety issue. How does the journal manage to keep
the review process fast and agile without losing that critical, fine-tooth-comb
scrutiny that the fracture mechanics community depends on?
FI: First of all, we check the presence of
plagiarism/selfplagiarism and AI contributionwith one of the best services,
iThenticate. In addition, we adopted the TITAN2025 guidelines to navigate the
AI revolution, allowing the authors to use the possibilities offered by this
new technology, but maintaining an ethic approach to the paper preparation.
After that … our Reviewers panel is simply fantastic! About four hundred
colleagues registered themselves in the journal website, being categorized
according to their expertise. In addition, we also activated the service
“Reviewer Credits” that allows us to find other motivated and competent
reviewers. With this double approach, it is not too hard for the journal to
find two or three colleagues that are available to spend their time and their
efforts volunteering as reviewers for our journal. This allows us to keep the publication
time mean value below five-six weeks from the first submission. Sometimes the
process takes a bit longer, often due to multiple rounds of review. This is
especially true for young researchers, where extra feedback is vital—and
quality coaching simply takes time!
3. Beyond the PDF: the community
services
AI: You offer more than just a landing
page for papers; there are video presentations, workshops, and a very active
involvement with the Italian Group of Fracture (IGF). How do these 'extra'
services transform a standard publication into a living tool for a researcher’s
career?
FI: The development of our journal
was simply amazing. We started publishing paper in Italian with a double column
format… really hard to be read on a mobile screen. Thank we changed to the one
column format, adopting English as the official language of the journal. Than,
we published the issues in a browsable format using the software FlippingBook.
After that, gradually, we published for each paper the Visual Abstracts (a two
minutes video with the “core” of the paper), the Graphical Abstract (prepared
using NotebookLM and approved by the authors), the podcast, always prepared
using NotebookLM, and, finally, the HTML version. All these services have
different goals and, maybe, a different audience. Some of them are dedicated to
offer to the potential readers a quick overview of the paper content, other try
to offer to the readers the best reading experience depending on the device.
According to our statistics, all these services are really appreciated by our
community. Just as an example, we started publishing the Visual Abstracts in
July 2018 and, in a few years, we had more than 120000 visualizations!
4. Navigating the indexing jungle
AI: With the journal being indexed in
Scopus and Web of Science, you’ve hit the 'prestige' milestones. But for a
young researcher looking at metrics like CiteScore or Impact Factor, why should
they see Fracture and Structural Integrity as a strategic home for their
high-citation work compared to the 'big-box' commercial publishers?
FI: Many colleagues, no matter if young or
“senior”, complain about being “forced” to publish papers in subscription, hybrid
or Gold OA journals as a publication in a high-impact journal is necessary or
mandatory for their career. New approaches to the metrics are becoming increasingly popular, for example, PlumX, which is already integrated in our journal. In my opinion, a journal like Fracture and Structural Integrity will be able to
adapt easily to these new metrics. In addition, given the 2025 Scimago results, with a Q2 across all indexed categories, I think Fracture and Structural Integrity can be considered a good impact journal! 😅
5. The “structural” future of the
field
AI: "Fracture mechanics is
evolving—we’re seeing more AI integration, additive manufacturing challenges,
and multi-scale modeling. As EIC, when you look at the submissions crossing
your desk today, what emerging trends get you truly excited about the next five
years of the journal?"
FI: Considering the rate of technological
evolution, I think it’s quite difficult to forecast any emerging trends over
the next five months! However, I am thrilled by the possibilities offered by AI, but it is crucial to maintain an ethical approach to its use… and I think this will be the most important challenge in the coming
months, not years!
6. A personal note to the skeptic
AI: If you were sitting down for a
coffee with a researcher who has only ever published in traditional, paywalled
journals and is skeptical about the 'independent' model, what would be your
30-second pitch to convince them to join your community?
FI: The publication models are continuously
evolving. My suggestion for a skeptic is to use all the publication models that
are ethically correct, giving a chance also to Diamond Open Access journals … you
might be surprised by the results!!
