It's based on Beall's list, which was mainly populated ad hoc with little to no overview of his reasoning. While Beall did a lot to put the spotlight on predato

It's based on Beall's list, which was mainly populated ad hoc with little to no overview of his reasoning. While Beall did a lot to put the spotlight on predatory journals, in practise he often included journals just for being of low quality. I have a hard time seeing what should be predatory about Oncoscience. They don't take fees for publishing, they have named editors, and explicit policies about plagiarism, peer review, etc.. Their peer review process might be loose, but it doesn't seem like they publish straight nonsense papers only published to pad numbers. I personally think its a journal of very low quality, but that doesn't make itpredatory.