What this category's data looks like
In the initial review scenario for academic journal submissions, materials usually include three types: submitted manuscripts, author information forms, and plagiarism check reports. The manuscript carries the main text and chunk boundaries, the information form carries author attribution, affiliation, and date signature, and the plagiarism check report carries the duplication rate and comparison sources. The three enter the document parsing and chunking stage from different sources: the manuscript is split according to chunkSize and chunkSplitter and then stored as data rows, while the information form and plagiarism check report each form their own rows as independent materials. The update rhythm advances with initial review batches; supplementary signatures of author information, version replacement, and reissuance of plagiarism check reports all bring differences in names, quantities, and dates for the same record across multiple materials. Field characteristics center on manuscript number, author name, affiliation, receipt date, signature, and receipt confirmation. After parsing and chunking, these fields need to maintain a traceable relationship to their original text positions, for later retrieval and citation when replying to parents or writing plans.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The basis entries that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is complete, parsing and chunking are immediately stored as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier. The index transitions through the three states parsed, indexing, and indexed, and data awaiting indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted manuscript | Chunk boundaries and original text positions are traceable, and the manuscript number, receipt date match the author information form and plagiarism check report | After uploading the manuscript, check the data row status and original text fragments, and inspect the chunkSize and chunkSplitter chunking results |
| Author information form | Author name, affiliation, signature, and receipt confirmation are complete, and the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across multiple materials | Check the file records and data rows separately, and compare the fields of the author information form against the manuscript and plagiarism check report item by item |
| Plagiarism check report | The version is the current version, and the comparison sources and date are synchronized with the manuscript version | Check the plagiarism check report version and receipt date, and confirm synchronization with the manuscript and author information form |
| Data row | It is in one of the three states parsed, indexing, or indexed and is consistent with the interface display | Open the data row to check the status, and confirm that trainingType corresponds to the processing mode and rebuild coverage |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the same author name is written inconsistently in the manuscript and the author information form. Cause: the two materials are entered separately, names are not uniformly proofread, and alignment becomes even harder when signatures and receipt confirmations are missing.
- Phenomenon: the plagiarism check report date does not match the manuscript receipt date. Cause: versions are not synchronized, the old version is not replaced after the report is reissued, and the date chain between materials is broken.
- Phenomenon: a newly uploaded material cannot be found. Cause: the data row is still in the awaiting-indexing state and has not entered completed indexing, so the retrieval layer naturally isolates it and it is not recalled.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: upload one material, observe the data row status transition from parsed to indexing to indexed, and check that the rebuild task covers only data rows with completed indexing.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question and see whether the answer provides a traceable source.
- Open the data row to check whether the status is consistent with the interface display, and confirm that the file record and the data row each have distinguishable identities.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that it targets only data with completed indexing, while data awaiting indexing does not participate in the rebuild.