What this category's data looks like
Materials for material versions and change maintenance for peer review organizations come from three types of records: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation contains the manuscript number, the date sent for review, the expert's name, and the invitation receipt; expert review comments contain the review conclusion, the body of the comments, the submission date, and the signature; author revision notes contain the point-by-point response, the revision location, the revision date, and the author's signature. The update cadence advances with review rounds, and each round produces a new version. When the materials enter workflow orchestration, the review invitation serves as the trigger basis, while expert review comments and author revision notes serve as the sources for branch decisions and ledger writes; the fields, dates, and signatures of the three must be aligned item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
This stage is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branches), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. "Version ledger and change records" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branches. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow state; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Check whether the manuscript number, the date sent for review, the expert's name, and the invitation receipt are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across the invitation and the comments materials | In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and reference variables to see whether the selection result variable is passed to subsequent nodes |
| Expert review comments | Check the review conclusion, the body of the comments, the submission date, and the signature, and confirm that the current version is unique, the old version is traceable, and references are synchronized | Trigger once, view the node status in the run record, and check the branch direction corresponding to nodeId |
| Author revision notes | Check the point-by-point response, the revision location, the revision date, and the author's signature, and check whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record fail to match across the two materials | Reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial once to confirm the branch direction when the signature or receipt is missing |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The manuscript number, number of experts, and date sent for review of the same record fail to match across the invitation and the comments materials. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, and old-version materials were not updated with the new round.
- Symptom: The revision date in the author revision notes conflicts with the submission date of the expert comments, and the reference points to the old version. Cause: The ledger did not record the change, and the reference was not synchronized and updated.
- Symptom: The review invitation lacks a receipt and the expert comments lack a signature, yet the process still continues. Cause: The branch decision does not cover the case of a missing signature or receipt.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Run trials for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that the selection result variable corresponding to nodeId and variables has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business test: Change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are synchronized and updated
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and trigger once to view the node status in the run record
- Reference
variablesin subsequent nodes and run a trial once, and check that the current version is unique, the old version is traceable, and references are synchronized