I completely agree that it is difficult to set down a clear set of criteria – there will always be some non-predatory journals that match some of the criteria. But maybe you’d be able to make a shortened list (some of the criteria are rather similar / specializations of each other) where predatory journals match more than half or something like that. Just an idea.
Regarding sloppy copy editing, Neil Saunders found a great example recently: http://nsaunders.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/we-really-dont-care-what-statistical-method-you-used/
