What this category's data looks like
In their daily operations, peer review organizations accumulate three core types of materials: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. Review invitations typically contain the manuscript number, proposed expert, review deadline, and receipt fields; expert review comments contain the review conclusion, itemized comments, signature, and submission date; author revision notes contain point-by-point responses, revision locations, version number, and note date. These materials come from scattered sources, and their update cadence is driven by the three stages of invitation, review, and revision. Their field characteristics center on four items: name, quantity, date, and signature. When entering workflow orchestration, the three types of materials each play a different role: the review invitation serves as the initiating credential, the expert review comments serve as the basis for review, and the author revision notes serve as the closed-loop record for revision. The three must remain version-synchronized within the same process to avoid discrepancies in the name, quantity, and date of the same record across different materials, ensuring that the issuable material drafts and handover records have complete fields and clear responsible parties.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. The "issuable material drafts and handover records" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution along the branches. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow status; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Field completeness: whether the manuscript number, proposed expert, review deadline, receipt signature, and date are all present | In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, confirm that the invitation-sent branch and the receipt-signed branch are each connected, and check whether the manuscript name, quantity, and date in the invitation record and the expert review comments are consistent |
| Expert review comments | Version and date consistency: whether the review conclusion, itemized comments, signature, and submission date correspond to the invitation record | Trigger a user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, check whether the variables referenced by the comments have been passed to subsequent nodes, and compare the name, quantity, and date of the same manuscript in the two materials |
| Author revision notes | Responsibility handover completeness: whether the point-by-point responses, revision locations, version number, note date, and signature receipt are all present | Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial, check the branch direction corresponding to nodeId, confirm that the version number of the revision notes is synchronized with that of the expert comments, and that missing signatures or receipts are blocked |
| Handover record | Destination receipt: whether the recipient in the next step, receipt date, and material version are consistent | Draft one according to the template and complete a handover, check whether the name, quantity, and date in the handover record align with the three materials, and confirm that the nodeId and variables references are correct |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same manuscript do not match between the review invitation and the expert comments. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, without synchronizing fields and versions within the same process.
- Symptom: The version of the author revision notes is not synchronized with that of the expert comments, and the old conclusion is still referenced after revision. Cause: The version number was not updated as the branch advanced, and it was not checked during handover.
- Symptom: The handover record lacks a signature or receipt, and the next step cannot sign for receipt. Cause: The responsibility handover fields were not set as required, and the node did not block missing items.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run trials for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and that the process continues execution after the interaction is completed.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete a handover, see whether missing items are blocked, and check whether the fields, dates, and signatures of the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes are complete and consistent.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and check whether the
variablesandnodeIdreferences are correct. - Trigger a user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the interaction status is recorded and the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes.