What this category's data looks like
This category's data typically includes review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes, which form a chain around the same manuscript. Review invitations record the invitation date, expert information, and reply status; expert review comments record the review conclusion, date, and signature; author revision notes record point-by-point responses, versions, and receipts. When these materials enter the Q&A intake function, they respectively play the roles of triggering intake, supplementing evidence, and confirming versions. The materials mostly come from email receipts, submission system exports, and offline signed scans, and the update cadence advances with review rounds. Fields often show the same manuscript name, quantity, and date mismatching across two materials, versions not synchronized, or missing signatures or receipts. In the intake step, missing items must first be identified, then the requester must be asked follow-up questions, answers must have material evidence, and finally the matter is forwarded to the handler.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, which outputs the response body, status code, and returned fields. The intake record and the completed question items are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled and completed by the external system according to the agreement. The HTTP module sends a request to the target address, and variables can be used as placeholders in three places: path parameters, request body, and request headers. Variables come from global variables, system variables, or outputs from preceding nodes.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The invitation date, expert information, and reply status must be consistent with the corresponding records in the expert review comments, and signatures or receipts must not be missing | Check the request body fields against the external interface agreement, compare the return with one sample request, and confirm that the invitation date and expert name can be aligned across the two materials |
| Expert review comments | The review conclusion, date, and signature must correspond to the version number and response items in the author revision notes, and quantities and dates must not conflict | Check the source of each placeholder in the variables panel, and confirm that the comment date and revision note date can be traced to the same manuscript version |
| Author revision notes | The point-by-point responses, version, and receipt must match the number of review comment items; if a signature or receipt is missing, ask follow-up questions first before answering | Check the request header names and value sources, confirm that Authorization is passed in according to the external system's requirements, and avoid empty fields |
| Request address and path parameters | Placeholder variables can be resolved into actual values, and variables and responseData are traceable | View the fully rendered address in the request preview, and confirm that the path parameters and request body fields both come from outputs of preceding nodes |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the request returns 401. Cause: the request header authentication information was not passed in according to the external system's requirements, and the value source of
Authorizationdoes not match the agreement. - Symptom: the name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match across two materials. Cause: the review invitation and expert review comments were not updated in sync for the same manuscript version.
- Symptom: the external system receives empty fields. Cause: the author revision notes are missing a signature or receipt, placeholder variables were not resolved into actual values, and the version was not synchronized.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample; confirm that the positions and value sources of Authorization, variables, and responseData in the request headers, path parameters, and response body are traceable.
Business test: submit a question missing key information and see whether it asks follow-up questions first before answering.
- Check the source of each placeholder in the variables panel, and confirm that the fields, dates, and signatures of the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes can be traced to the same manuscript version.
- Compare the return with one sample request, confirm that the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement, and that missing items are identified and followed up on before being forwarded to the handler.