The presentation will examine how inclusion and exclusion are negotiated within the German legal publishing landscape, a field traditionally dominated by a small number of commercial publishers and characterized by strong disciplinary conventions. Against this backdrop, Diamond Open Access (DOA) and other non-commercial, scholar-led initiatives remain structurally marginal, despite their potential to diversify scholarly communication.

Taking the case of Verfassungsblog, we analyze how emerging Open Access infrastructures and evaluation criteria reshape community boundaries and redefine what counts as legitimate legal scholarship. Its removal from the Directory of Open Access Journals in 2025 illustrates these dynamics. In its public response, DOAJ framed the decision as part of ongoing boundary work around the definition of a scholarly journal. However, other legal scholars, including Lasse Ramson, argue that the applied criteria risk privileging standardized models that align poorly with legal scholarship’s specific practices [1].

Methodologically, the paper combines a qualitative case study of Verfassungsblog with document analysis of policy texts, including DOAJ criteria, public statements, and blog interventions by key actors in the Open Access community. This is complemented by a comparative analysis of publishing norms in German legal scholarship, focusing on formats, peer review practices, and language use. Drawing on concepts from the sociology of science—particularly boundary work and epistemic governance—the study traces how evaluative standards are constructed, justified, and contested across different communities.

The analysis shows that current DOA policies and infrastructures reproduce structural power asymmetries between disciplines, languages, and publishing models. In law, where shorter formats, rapid interventions, and nationally embedded discourse traditions are central, such criteria can lead to the exclusion of otherwise widely recognized scholarly platforms. As the Verfassungsblog case demonstrates, delisting can have material consequences, as inclusion in indexing services is often tied to funding eligibility.

The presentation will thus highlight a broader tension: while Diamond Open Access is often framed as a driver of diversity and inclusivity, its institutionalization risks narrowing the range of acceptable publishing practices. I argue that without greater sensitivity to disciplinary and linguistic differences, current developments may reinforce existing hierarchies in legal academia rather than challenge them. The paper concludes by calling for more pluralistic evaluation frameworks that recognize diverse forms of legal scholarship and support genuinely inclusive research communities.