D2.1_Comparative Analysis of Quality Support Instruments and Evaluation Systems

This report analyses scholarly publishing evaluation systems that influence Diamond Open Access (OA) journals in Europe, Latin America and Africa. It examines national and international quality-support frameworks for evaluating journals, identifying similarities and differences across the three regions. In addition, it considers research evaluation systems where they include frameworks for assessing the journals in which researchers publish. The report makes two main contributions: International comparison. It compares twelve international organisations across five dimensions: organisational profile, editorial quality criteria, Open Access and financing model orientation, alignment with responsible evaluation principles, and equity, diversity and multilingualism. Typology of national systems. Using cluster analysis, it groups countries with similar evaluation policy profiles and compares them across regions. This analysis reveals persistent tensions between journal evaluation as a quality support tool and as a tool for researcher promotion, between journal evaluation and researcher incentives within countries, and between national evaluation frameworks and open science policies. The report identifies where Diamond OA and responsible assessment are gaining ground and where commercial defaults persist. It provides the evidence base for the ALMASI mutual learning exercise and for quality instruments with global applicability, and it offers researchers, policymakers and practitioners a broader view of how the landscape varies across regions.