What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the journal three-stage review and three-proof correction and editorial quality scenario. The materials include three types: three-stage review forms, proofs, and proofreading records. The three-stage review form records the fields, dates, and signatures of the initial review, re-review, and final review, and is the starting point of the responsibility chain; the proof carries the traces of layout and text changes, reflecting the results of editorial execution; the proofreading record registers round by round the proofreading rounds, errors, and re-corrections, embodying the quality closed loop. The materials are submitted by each stage of the editorial department according to rounds, and are continuously updated as review rounds and proofreading rounds advance. The field characteristics are the coexistence of multiple rounds, multiple signatures, and multiple dates. When entering the form input function, the three-stage review form provides the basis for review rounds and signatures, the proof provides the basis for versions and changes, and the proofreading record provides the basis for proofreading rounds and re-corrections. The three serve as mutual references for identifying missing question items and triggering follow-up questions.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the form input node (interaction node) in the workflow, and outputs the field values filled in by the user (passed to subsequent nodes after submission). After the form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state and records the workflow state. After the user fills in the required items and submits, the form information is passed to subsequent nodes for use. "Acceptance records and completed question items" are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-stage review form | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are complete for each review round, and whether missing items can be identified and followed up | In the node configuration, check the field names and required settings one by one; after submission, check whether subsequent nodes can obtain the signature and date field values of the initial review, re-review, and final review |
| Proof | Whether the version and changes are synchronized with the review round, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match | Compare the version identifier and change entries item by item against the three-stage review form and proofreading record; if signatures or receipts are missing, ask follow-up questions first before answering |
| Proofreading record | Whether proofreading rounds, errors, and re-corrections are registered round by round, and whether follow-up questions are asked first when key information is missing | Reference this field in subsequent nodes and run a trial to check whether the proofreading round and re-correction date can be obtained; use formInputResult and selectResult to verify field transmission |
| Acceptance records and completed question items | Whether missing items are identified and followed up, and whether answers are based on materials | After submission, check the field values obtained by subsequent nodes, and confirm that the follow-up items correspond one-to-one with the material fields |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the three-stage review form and the proofreading record. Cause: The two materials are registered separately, without field-level comparison and synchronization.
- Phenomenon: The proof version is not synchronized with the review round, and the change traces are inconsistent with the proofreading record. Cause: After the version update, the review round information was not backfilled, and there is a lack of version verification between materials.
- Phenomenon: The three-stage review form or proofreading record is still accepted even when signatures or receipts are missing. Cause: Key material fields are not marked as required, and after submission subsequent nodes cannot obtain the corresponding values.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Fill out the form once and submit it, check whether the field values obtained by subsequent nodes correspond one-to-one with the filled fields, whether empty required items can be blocked, and whether the conversation stays in the interactive state.
Business test: Submit a question missing key information and see whether it asks follow-up questions first before answering.
- In the node configuration, check the field names and required markers one by one to ensure that key material fields are marked as required.
- Reference the
formInputResultandselectResultfields in subsequent nodes and run a trial to confirm that the corresponding field values can be obtained after submission.