From the about page of the linked site:

> Journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit should not be allowed to share space with legitimate journals and publishers, whether open access or not. These journals and publishers cheapen intellectual work by misleading scholars, preying particularly early career researchers trying to gain an edge. The credibility of scholars duped into publishing in these journals can be seriously damaged by doing so. It is important that as a scholarly community we help to protect each other from being taken advantage of in this way.

Seems to me that there should be a browser extension or something to bring things like this to a person's attention. Maybe a uBlock Origin list?

You can use my keyword highlighter, at least for the invented words (needs modifications for multiple-worded names though):

https://openuserjs.org/scripts/danuker/Keyword_Highlighter/

I second the idea of a browser extension for bad brands/journals/websites in general, maybe something like this posted earlier could be expanded [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29577148

I wish the site explained _why_ this particular journal was predatory. Right now it seems to easy to convince the site to add $rival_journal to the junk journal list.

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.

Which journal are you referring to? I tried to search different variations of the website name on the list and couldn't find it.

Oncoscience. The NIH's PubMed (a search engine) is just showing you the article which was published in the junk journal Oncoscience.

That explains it. I was surprised that an nih.gov site would be a predatory journal. I guess they need to filter better what they include in their search.

We should make it a policy on HN to link to the original journal article instead of the PubMed copy.

But only if it is readable without payment, of course.

"Oncoscience" I guess