Reviewer Guidelines

Dynamic Computing appreciates the contribution of reviewers who help maintain the scientific quality and integrity of the journal. Peer reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Purpose of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to provide an independent assessment of the quality, originality, technical soundness, and significance of a manuscript. Reviewer comments should help the editor make an informed editorial decision and, where appropriate, help authors improve the quality of their work.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

Share the manuscript or review materials with others without permission from the editor.
Discuss the manuscript or its contents with individuals outside the review process.
Use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal research or professional advantage.
Upload confidential manuscript content to external services that could compromise confidentiality.

Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period.

Reviewers should decline the invitation when they do not have appropriate subject expertise, cannot complete the review within the required timeframe, or have a conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review. Conflicts may include:

Recent collaboration with one or more authors.
Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
Institutional affiliations that may affect impartiality.
Direct academic or commercial competition.
Financial interests related to the research.
Any other circumstance that could compromise objective evaluation.

If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

General Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts considering the following aspects:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
Clarity of the research objectives.
Appropriateness of the methodology.
Validity of experiments, analysis, or theoretical development.
Accuracy and interpretation of results.
Quality and relevance of the literature review.
Clarity and organisation of the manuscript.
Quality and completeness of references.
Significance of the contribution to the field.

Assessment of Methodology

Reviewers should determine whether the research methodology is appropriate for addressing the stated research objectives. Where applicable, reviewers should consider the adequacy of experimental design, datasets, computational methods, statistical analysis, validation procedures, and comparison with existing approaches.

Assessment of Results and Conclusions

Reviewers should assess whether the results are adequately supported by the methodology and data presented. Conclusions should follow logically from the reported findings and should not contain claims that extend substantially beyond the evidence provided.

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge. The manuscript should demonstrate sufficient originality, technical development, theoretical insight, practical significance, or application-oriented contribution appropriate to its subject area.

References

Reviewers should assess whether the references are relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and appropriately cited. Reviewers may recommend additional references when important relevant literature has been omitted. Such recommendations should be based on academic relevance and not on the reviewer's personal publication interests.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other potential misconduct, they should confidentially notify the handling editor through the review system.

Reviewers should not independently contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

Constructive Reviewer Comments

Reviewer reports should be professional, objective, and constructive. Comments should focus on the scientific and technical quality of the manuscript rather than the authors personally.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

Clearly explain major concerns.
Identify specific sections that require improvement.
Provide constructive recommendations.
Distinguish major issues from minor corrections.
Avoid offensive, discriminatory, or personal comments.

Recommendation to the Editor

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide an overall recommendation based on their assessment. Possible recommendations may include:

Accept.
Minor Revision.
Major Revision.
Resubmit for Further Review.
Reject.

The recommendation should be supported by the comments and evaluation provided in the review report.

Reviewer Anonymity

Dynamic Computing follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and reviewers should avoid including information in their reports that could unnecessarily reveal their identity.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not use generative AI tools or other external services in a manner that could disclose confidential manuscript content. Reviewers remain responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all materials provided for review.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the review period specified in the invitation. If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the Editorial Office can identify an alternative reviewer.

Reviewer Recognition

Dynamic Computing values the voluntary scholarly contribution of peer reviewers. Where appropriate and subject to journal procedures, the journal may recognise reviewer contributions while maintaining the confidentiality of individual review assignments.

Final Responsibility

Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered together with other editorial information before a decision is made.

Contact

Reviewers who have questions regarding an assigned manuscript or the review process may contact the Editorial Office through the communication options provided within the OJS platform.