Diamond Open Access, a scholarly publishing model that foresees no fees for authors or readers, is often regarded as an ethical and fair ideal of Open Access publishing due to its (potential) contribution to inclusivity and epistemic justice (Andringa et al., 2024; Fuchs & Sandoval, 2013). Although this ideal hinges on Diamond Open Access being global, Diamond Open Access publishing is not evenly spread across the geographical regions or disciplines. In terms of geographic representation, the highest percentage of Diamond Open Access publishing venues are found in Latin America and Eastern European countries, while other regions show much lower prevalence (Bosman et al., 2021). In terms of disciplinary representation, the highest percentage is found for Humanities and Social Sciences, followed by the Sciences and then Medicine (Bosman et al., 2021). Discussions around Diamond Open Access commonly centre around current problems faced by authors and journals as well as the model’s sustainability (Bosman et al., 2021; Subaveerapandiyan et al., 2025). Nonetheless, despite these short-term and long-term challenges, Diamond Open Access continues to be the ideal publishing model that many individuals in the Open Science community (Cavalli, 2025) and institutions strive for, as evidenced within the European context by the cOAlition S consortium and the European Diamond Capacity Hub. Here, we are concerned with the current complexities of navigating Open Access publishing from the perspective of authors actively researching or promoting Diamond Open Access. If authors actively promote Diamond Open Access, a naïve reader may reasonably assume that these authors publish their articles predominantly or even exclusively in Diamond Open Access journals. The reality, however, is unlikely to be this simple, as where an article ends up being published is commonly influenced by factors that go beyond an individual author’s attitude towards different publishing models. These additional factors range from the availability of these publishing models within the author’s discipline, to top-down pressures such as requirements from funders and the author’s institution and horizontal pressures from peers and collaborators such as disciplinary norms and co-authors’ attitudes. A first step toward recognising what other factors influence where an author who supports Diamond Open Access chooses to publish is to establish where such supporters of Diamond Open Access ultimately publish their work. Thus, in this study, we aim to map out the Open Access status of publishing venues of authors publishing on Diamond Open Access. To do so, we focus on all articles with a title and abstract available in English that mention the term ‘Diamond Open Access’ in their title, regardless of discipline, and which can, based on their abstract, be classified as having an overall positive or somewhat positive attitude towards Diamond Open Access publishing. For these articles, we extract the information on the journal and record its Open Access status. Additionally, we extract information on the corresponding author of these articles and information about where this author’s subsequent articles are published. We will present these results descriptively and discuss possible explanations and implications. The results of this study can serve as the basis for further investigations, including surveys on authors’ decision-making processes and challenges with Diamond Open Access publishing in order to help work towards equitable publishing systems that take into account geographical, disciplinary, and other forms of diversity.