Posters submitted for the Diamas conference "The Future of Diamond OA Publishing in Europe and Beyond" held in Brussels on June 3rd, 2025.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DIAMAS project proudly invited poster submissions from the scholarly community for the inspiring conference “The Future of Diamond OA Publishing in Europe and Beyond,” held in Brussels on June 3rd. This event provided a remarkable opportunity for individuals and institutions across Europe and beyond to showcase their innovative work and establish valuable connections within the Diamond Open Access (OA) community. Here are the posters submitted in numerical order: 1. “Enhancing University Publishing through the DOAS Self-Assessment Tool: Example of the MorePress platform at the University of Zadar, Croatia” by Ivana Morić Filipović, Drahomira Cupar, and Jadranka Stojanovski (University of Zadar, Croatia); 2. “UN PLATFORM: A Regional Eff ort to publish Open and Enhanced Books following the Diamond Model” by Stéphanie Vincent Guionneau and Aline Tanneur (Université Bordeaux Montaigne); 3. “The French network of open access scientific journal incubators” by Ariciat Bassinet (Université de Lorraine); 4. “Sustaining Diamond OA in Switzerland: Recommendations from the PLATO Project” by Daniela Hanh (PLATO/University of Zurich); 5. “Equitable Access to Research and Publication in Africa: Current Findings and Future Directions Guided by The DIAMAS EDIB Strategy” by Vincent Kipkorir, Robert Parker, Stella Itungu, Abebe Bekele (East and Central African Journal of Surgery (ECAJS) - The College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa (COSECSA); 6. “Creating a new Diamond OA journal” by Jonathan Dumont (ULiège) 7. “Collaboration for sustainable open access publishing in Africa” by Femi Arogundade, Innocent Azilan (1), Abigail Essel (1), Iryna Kuchma (2), Susan Murray (3), Ivy Mutambanengwe (3), Omo Oaiya (1), Milica Ševkušić (2) ((1) WACREN, (2) EIFL, (3) AJOL); 8. “Funding and Coordinating a National Diamond Open Access Landscape Strengths and untapped potential in Canada” by Jessica Dallaire-Clark and Jeanette Hatherill; 9. “OpenEdition Freemium Programme: An Economic Model for Open and Sustainable Publishing” by Julie Therizols, Breno Santos, and David Beorchia (OpenEdition); 10. “Where Community-Owned Research Shines” by Janne Pölönen (Federation of Finnish Learned Societies); Kelly Achenbach (Max Weber Stiftung), Margo Bargheer (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), Tabea Klaus (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), Hanna Varachkina (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), and Yin Chen (EGI Foundation); 11. “Polish Way to Diamond OA: Implementing Diamond Open Access Practices in Poland” by Mateusz Franczak, Marta M. Świetlik, and Magdalena Wnuk (IBL PAN); 12. “Establishing the National Diamond Open Access Capacity Centre in Serbia” by Boris Đenadić (1), Aleksandra Kužet (1), Katarina Perić (1), Milica Ševkušić (2 – 3), Tatjana Timotijević (1) ( (1) KoBSON, National Library of Serbia, (2) Institute of Technical Sciences of SASA, (3) EIFL); 13. “Open Books need Open Bricks” by Niels Stern (OAPEN Foundation); 14. “Scholar-led, community owned open access” by Paula Clemente Vega and Caroline Edwards (Open Library of Humanities); 15. “Nordic Capacity Centre for Diamond Open Access – regional collaboration for scholar-led publish” by Sofie Wennström (Stockholm University), Markku Roinila (University of Helsinky), Per Pippin Aspaas (UiT The Arctic University of Norway), and Helgi Sigurbjörnsson (Landsbókasafn Íslands – Háskólabókasafn); 16. “A Diamond Open Access University Press” by Andrea Collivignarelli (Milano University Press) 17. “Diamond Open Access Journals in Pakistan: Current Challenges and Potential Solutions” by Dr. Muhammad Imtiaz Subhani & Amber Osman (XploreOpen and DOAJ); 18. “Bridging the Gap: JISTaP as a Diamond Open Access Practice in Korea” by Hyekyong Hwang (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information); 19. “FEEDBACK FROM THE “JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC FINANCE”” by Pr. Jamel Eddine HENCHIRI (RED-ISGG Lab., University of Gabes); 20. “Repères et Mir@bel : deux réseaux pour améliorer la visibilité des revues diamant” by Sophie Fotiadi (Sciences Po Lyon - Institut d'études politiques de Lyon (IEP Lyon)). 21. "Diamond Journal Selector" by Research Support Staff Library Service (Universitat de València).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.413 | 0.121 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".