They do add:

> Generative AI statement

> The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

> Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Which is good.

But it makes me wonder about “wherever possible”. In which case wouldn’t it be possible and why would it remain if it’s not possible?

edits: formatting

I would not trust predatoryjournals.org. Beside the site looking much like the worst predatory journals, they have no transparency in who they are and how they evaluate journals. It seems just to be Beall's old list, with some newer things thrown in.

I'm not saying that Frontiers in Neuroscience is not predatory, but its not a proper argument for it to be predatory, to point to a random list as proof. As Beall couldn't understand being crap publisher is not predatory in it self.