What this category's data looks like
During the review process, a peer review organization produces three types of materials: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. Review invitations record the invitation send date, expert name, and acknowledgment status; expert review comments record the comment body, submission date, and signature; author revision notes record revision items, the corresponding comment number, and the submission date. These materials are updated weekly, and the fields are mainly dates, names, quantities, and signatures. When entering this function, review invitations serve as the record source to be verified, expert review comments serve as the basis for progress statistics, and author revision notes serve as the source of exception explanations; together, the three support the preparation of the progress table and the explanation of statistical criteria.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, which outputs the response body, status code, and returned fields. The "progress table and explanation of statistical criteria" is parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by an external system according to the agreement to complete the rest.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Whether the invitation date, expert name, and acknowledgment signature are consistent with the progress table | Check the rendered address and the source of variables in the request preview, and compare the invitation records with the progress table fields |
| Expert review comment | Whether the comment submission date, comment number, and signature correspond to the statistical criteria | Check the source of the Authorization request header value, and use a sample request to compare the returned fields with the comment records |
| Author revision note | Whether the number of revision items, the corresponding comment number, and the submission date match the statistical counts | Check the responseData returned fields against the revision note records, and check whether exceptions are written into the header |
| Request headers and request body | Whether the authentication information and field conventions are passed in as required by the external system | Check the request header names and value sources, and use a sample request to compare the response |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and date of the same record do not match between the review invitation and the expert review comment. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately and have not been cross-checked.
- Symptom: The statistical count in the progress table is inconsistent with the number of items in the author revision note. Cause: The versions are not synchronized, and the progress table was not written back after the revision note was updated.
- Symptom: The review comment lacks a signature or acknowledgment, and the statistical criteria do not mark the exception. Cause: Signatures and acknowledgments were not included in the header fields, and exceptions were not recorded separately.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, and then compare the result against a sample.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the totals, and see whether the criteria and exceptions are clearly stated.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the request address and path parameters can be parsed into actual values.
- Check the request header names and value sources, and use a sample request to compare the returned fields with the external interface conventions.