What this category's data looks like
Journal three-review-three-proof and editorial quality materials include three-review forms, proofs, proofreading records, editorial processing notes, and final review opinions. The sources are the editorial office's three-level process of initial review, re-review, and final review, as well as external proofreading receipts. The update cadence changes with the flow of each issue's manuscripts and revision rounds. Fields cover review round, proofreading round, responsible person, date, signature, version number, and revision notes. When these materials enter the document parsing and chunking function, the three-review forms carry process traceability and responsibility determination, proofs carry the baseline for text and layout comparison, proofreading records carry difference tracing and receipt confirmation, editorial processing notes carry the basis for revisions, and final review opinions carry the issuance conclusion. Parsing and chunking split each material into retrievable data rows. The version ledger and change records are completed by retrieval and subsequent processing, making the current version unique, old versions traceable, and citations synchronized.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "version ledger and change records" are then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsing and chunking immediately persist to the database as visible data rows and bind a unique data identifier. The index transitions through the three states parsed, indexing, and indexed. Data pending indexing does not participate in recall. Changing the model only rebuilds data that has already completed indexing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-review form | Whether the review round, date, and signature are complete, and whether the name and quantity of the same record are consistent between the three-review form and the proof | Open the data row to verify the review round, date, signature, and version number of the three-review form, use chunkSplitter and chunkSize to check whether chunking preserves the review round field, and then compare the same record in the proof |
| Proof | Whether the proofreading round, date, and signature are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match the proofreading record | Verify the data rows of the proof and the proofreading record separately, confirm that the proofreading round, date, signature, and version number are consistent, and check whether the processing mode corresponding to trainingType covers the proof material |
| Proofreading record | Whether the receipt and signature are complete, whether the version number is consistent with the current version, and whether the old version is traceable | Verify the receipt, signature, and version number of the proofreading record, confirm that the data row status is one of parsed, indexing, or indexed and is consistent with the interface display, and check whether citations are synchronized to point to the current version |
| File record and data row | Whether the identities of the file record and the data row are kept separate, and whether the rebuild scope covers only data that has completed indexing | Verify the file record and the data row separately, check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task include only the indexed status, and confirm that the initial training covers data pending indexing and data being indexed |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the three-review form and the proof. Cause: The two materials are parsed and persisted separately, are not merged by the same data identifier, and the version ledger is not synchronized.
- Symptom: The current version has been updated, but the old version is still cited. Cause: Changing the model only rebuilds data that has already completed indexing; data pending indexing does not participate in the rebuild chain, and citations are not synchronized.
- Symptom: The proofreading record lacks a signature or receipt, and empty data rows remain after training fails. Cause: Successful parsing does not equal a retrieval hit; the index status has not transitioned to indexed, and failed data is not edited or deleted in time.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: upload one material, observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task, confirm that the status transitions among parsed, indexing, and indexed, that rebuild covers only indexed data, and verify the chunking and processing modes corresponding to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and citations are updated synchronously.
- Open the data row to verify whether the status is one of parsed, indexing, or indexed and is consistent with the interface display, and verify the file record and the data row separately.
- Check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task include only data that has completed indexing, confirm that the initial training covers data pending indexing and data being indexed, and check that the number of citations and the citation text tokens are recorded separately.