Peer Review Policy

Dynamic Computing is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and impartial peer-review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a thorough scientific evaluation to ensure the originality, quality, technical soundness, and significance of the research before publication.

Peer Review Model

Dynamic Computing follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process. In this review model, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach promotes fairness, objectivity, and unbiased evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, every manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

Compliance with the journal's aims and scope.
Originality and scientific relevance.
Quality of presentation and language.
Adherence to submission guidelines.
Completeness of manuscript files and supporting documents.
Potential ethical concerns or publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to independent experts with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript's subject area.

The journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and novelty.
Scientific significance.
Technical quality and methodology.
Experimental design and validation.
Data analysis and interpretation.
Clarity of presentation.
Quality of references and literature review.
Contribution to existing knowledge.
Relevance to the journal's scope.
Overall suitability for publication.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor makes one of the following editorial decisions:

Accept without revision.
Accept with minor revisions.
Major revisions required.
Resubmit for further review.
Reject.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and compliance with the journal's publication standards.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related documents are treated as confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished material for personal research or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers who have conflicts arising from collaborations, institutional affiliations, financial interests, or personal relationships should decline the review invitation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
Maintain confidentiality.
Identify relevant published work that has not been cited.
Report any suspected plagiarism or ethical concerns.
Avoid personal criticism of the authors.
Support recommendations with clear scientific justification.

Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors are expected to cooperate fully during the peer-review process by responding to reviewer comments professionally, submitting revised manuscripts within the requested time, and providing additional information whenever requested by the editorial office.

Review Timeline

Dynamic Computing strives to complete the peer-review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining high academic standards. Although review durations may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the journal endeavours to communicate editorial decisions in a timely manner.

Ethical Standards

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognised ethical publishing principles. Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and academic integrity throughout the review process.

Commitment to High-Quality Peer Review

Dynamic Computing considers peer review to be a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. The journal remains committed to ensuring that every published article meets the highest standards of scientific quality, ethical integrity, originality, and technical excellence through an independent and rigorous peer-review process.