Dynamic Computing follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, technical soundness, and academic relevance of the manuscripts submitted to the journal.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated through a structured editorial and peer-review process before a final publication decision is made.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is checked by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic submission, formatting, and ethical requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or essential submission requirements may be returned to the authors without being sent for external review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to appropriate reviewers based on the subject area, technical content, and expertise required for evaluating the work.

The editorial team seeks to select reviewers who have appropriate knowledge and expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript.

3. Peer Review

The manuscript is evaluated by independent reviewers. Reviewers assess the manuscript with respect to its originality, technical quality, methodology, clarity, relevance, presentation, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers may provide comments and recommendations to assist the editors in reaching an informed editorial decision and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor evaluates the manuscript and makes an appropriate editorial decision. Possible decisions may include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Resubmit for Review
• Reject

The final decision is made by the editor based on the overall assessment of the manuscript and the available reviewer feedback.

5. Revision of Manuscripts

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and submit a revised version within the specified period.

Authors may also be requested to provide a response explaining how the comments and recommendations have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

6. Re-Review

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions required.

Further revisions may be requested when the manuscript does not yet adequately address the concerns raised during the review process.

7. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is considered for final acceptance only after the editorial team is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal's academic, technical, ethical, and editorial requirements.

Acceptance of a manuscript is subject to the final decision of the editor.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to the journal and the associated peer-review information are handled confidentially. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and the information obtained during the review process.

9. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers are expected to provide objective and unbiased assessments. Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their evaluation of a manuscript.

10. Editorial Responsibility

The editorial team is responsible for managing the peer-review process and making editorial decisions based on the quality, relevance, originality, and overall suitability of the manuscript.