What this category's data looks like
In the initial review stage of academic journal submissions, material drafting and responsibility handover revolve around three types of materials: submitted manuscripts, author information forms, and plagiarism check reports. Submitted manuscripts come from author submissions, and updates change with revised versions; fields include title, authors, affiliation, abstract, keywords, main text, and attachments. Author information forms are filled in by authors and checked by the editorial office; fields include name, order, affiliation, contribution statement, and signature. Plagiarism check reports are generated by the detection system; fields include detection date, duplication rate range, comparison sources, and receipt. When these three types of materials enter knowledge base retrieval and recall, they respectively serve the roles of source-text basis, responsible-party evidence, and compliance evidence, providing material for subsequent nodes to draft signable material drafts and handover records.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate chunks and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, re-rank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). Signable material drafts and handover records are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted manuscript | Title, authors, affiliation, date, and signature must be consistent with the author information form | In the search test, retrieve with synonymous questions, check candidate chunks and scores, and record the number of candidates |
| Author information form | Name, order, affiliation, contribution statement, and signature must be consistent with the manuscript | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and compare whether candidates cover both materials |
| Plagiarism check report | Detection date, duplication rate range, comparison sources, and receipt must be synchronized with the manuscript version | Compare the ranking of the top few results before and after enabling usingReRank, and check the quoted text after similarity filtering |
| Handover record | Responsible person, version, and date must align with the fields of the three types of materials | After trimming by limit, check the tokens of the quoted text, and record the number of array items separately |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, affiliation, and date of the same record do not match between the manuscript and the author information form. Cause: Drafting was not based on the same version, and retrieval candidates were not compared field by field.
- Phenomenon: The plagiarism check report version is not synchronized, and the handover record still cites the old detection date. Cause: The version and date were not updated with the revision, and the receipt was not checked before handover.
- Phenomenon: The handover record lacks a signature or receipt, so the next step cannot be accepted. Cause: The responsible person and date fields were not fully filled in, and missing items in the drafting template were not blocked.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle re-ranking on and off to observe the ranking of the top few results, and record the number of candidates and scores.
Business test: draft one copy according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked.
- In the search test, switch retrieval modes and check whether candidates include both semantic and full-text results, and record the number of candidates and scores.
- Compare the order of the top few results before and after enabling re-ranking, and check whether the quoted text retains key chunks after similarity filtering and upper-limit trimming of quotes.