To answer your question, this journal is reported to have had 602, 610 and 583 papers during the latest recorded years, a bit more than what you estimated. Almost all of them are original papers (130 journals. Those between 20 and 10 cites include many Elsevier and one Wiley journal.
I do not see anything suspicious in the list. This journal is now in volume 12, one volume per year, confirmed by the citation data at TR, so it is not an upstart with falsified volumes. It is also a print with additional online, alledgedly financed at least in part by subscription fees. Do we know this is not true? Do we know hether they perhaps sell advertisements to the print issues, etc?
Reading the contents of the 6 issues in the current year volume (oddly not close to 24) at least 98% fit well with the title. Thus, the journal seems adequately edited to me and the EB, although large by western standards, seems to do its job. The only odd ones out were 3 papers on human subjects that would be better placed in a medical journal – but admittedly we also belong to the animal kingdom. I did not find the pun in this blog post on the paper on concrete properties appropriate. After all, the paper discusses concrete use in agricultural buildings, so I would for my part consider it bona fide for this journal scope. Overall, to select that particular one and display it in the light of nbeing off topic in this post was unfair, in my opinion.
Also, I do not find the number of papers published per year any reliable criterion on journal quality. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Take one example from a field more close to me, is it also too easy to publish in Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science? After all, they print – on-line only – far more papers in their 12 annual issues than this Pakistani journal does in its 24 – e.g. a grand total of 1002 last year. Yet this is a high tier journal with an IF of 3.441. To make that claim, one would also need to know what is the percentage rejected, which was not mentioned in this blog post.
This may well be a lower tier journal, as indicated by its low IF, but by and large, it does not appear obviously predatory to me one any account – whatever may apply to Medwell in broad terms as a publisher.
