What this category's data looks like
This page is intended for peer review organizations. The materials come from three types of records: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. They are updated according to the manuscript circulation stage, and the fields include name, quantity, date, and signature. Review invitation records record the invitation time, reviewer, manuscript name, and receipt; expert review comments record comment items, review date, and signature; author revision notes record the number of revisions, note date, and author signature. When the three types of materials enter the material verification and discrepancy localization function, each plays an independent role: review invitations provide the initial record and receipt fields, expert review comments provide comment item and signature fields, and author revision notes provide revision count and date fields. The function focuses on whether the name, quantity, and date of the same object are consistent across two materials, locates the discrepant fields, forms a discrepancy list for the reviewer to confirm, and writes it back to the ledger.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by application settings (response limit, etc.), which output the length of a single answer and the range of context that can be accommodated. The discrepancy list is then completed by the model. The response limit is controlled by a slider for the length of a single answer. If set too low, the answer will be truncated; if set too high, consumption will increase.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The manuscript name, invitation date, and receipt signature of the review invitation must be compared item by item with the ledger | In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, use maxResponse to limit the length of a single answer, record maxContext and quoteMaxToken, and compare the invitation date and receipt signature |
| Expert review comments | The comment items, review date, and signature of the review comments must be consistent with the review invitation record | Check the number of comment items and the review date, check whether the signature is complete, and write discrepant fields into the discrepancy list |
| Author revision notes | The number of revisions, note date, and author signature of the revision notes must correspond to the review comments | Check the number of revisions and the note date, check whether the author signature or receipt is missing, and submit to the reviewer for confirmation before writing back to the ledger |
| Ledger | The name, quantity, date, and signature in the ledger must be cross-consistent with the three materials | Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, locate the discrepancy, and then write back to the ledger |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The manuscript name of the same record does not match between the review invitation and the expert review comments. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, no cross-check was performed, and the name field was not synchronized.
- Symptom: The number of revisions in the author revision notes is inconsistent with the quantity in the ledger. Cause: The revision note version was not synchronized, the ledger still retained the old revision count, and the discrepancy was not located.
- Symptom: The expert review comments lack a signature or receipt. Cause: The signature and receipt fields were not archived together with the materials, so the reviewer cannot confirm the validity of the comments.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: ask a question that requires a long answer, check whether the ending is complete, and confirm that the response limit setting matches the answer length required by the page, avoiding the answer being cut off in the middle of a sentence.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, and check the name, quantity, date, and signature of that record in the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes.
- In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, record
maxResponse,maxContext, andquoteMaxToken, and compare usage between two runs. - Submit the discrepancy list to the reviewer for confirmation, write it back to the ledger after confirmation, and check whether the signature or receipt has been completed.