Comment on List of Predatory Publishers 2014 by EGPF

I have published two papers at Psyche, from Hindawi. I will tell of my experience here.
Psyche was a very reputable journal in past decades, especially among researchers working with social insects. Hindawi decided to revive this journal, and spread a good marketing about it, while managing to amass a good list of reputed editors from the field. Also they were good enough to include in their website .pdfs to all papers by Psyche from the old days, all available for free. I thus decided to publish two relevant papers in it as it looked like a very promising growing, open-acces journal. I was quite satisfied with the quality of peer-review, and I guess I got reviews from experienced peers in my field. I must mention, however, that they asked me for a list of prospective reviewers, and I do not like this practice by principle.
Upon publication problems started to show: there is no editor in chief or handling editor, thus formatting and proofs are made by a series of secretaries with weird names, each at a time, and they kept asking unusual demands on file formats and file names, while including many typos and mistakes in the proofs. This problem hit me when publishing both papers. There was no responsible editor to complain about this, or asking for guidance, only several non-scientist secretaries.
Eventually I managed to publish each paper free of errors, and final quality was good, easy to find, and open-access.
However I must say that my papers did not make the expected impact, suggesting that readers do not really read them or take them seriously enough. I am not sure about the reasons, but maybe because it is an open-access publisher.
After many years since its re-inauguration, Psyche still does not have an impact factor. In the endpoint, I feel publishing at Psyche from Hindawi was not a good choice.