What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of three-review three-proof and editorial quality for journals. The materials include three types: three-review forms, proofs, and proofreading records. The three-review forms carry the fields, dates, and signatures of the initial review, re-review, and final review; the proofs carry versions, page numbers, and change marks; the proofreading records carry the name, quantity, date, and receipt of each round of proofreading. The materials come from each stage of the editorial process and are aggregated and updated weekly or monthly. The field characteristic is that the same record appears repeatedly across multiple materials, and names, quantities, and dates need cross-comparison. When entering this function, the three-review forms and proofreading records serve as the input for progress records and statistical verification, and the proofs serve as the reference for version synchronization. Together, the three support the verification of the progress table and the statistical scope statement.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. The "progress table and statistical scope statement" is continued and completed by subsequent nodes according to the branches.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-review form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the name and quantity of the same record match across the two 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 |
| Proof | Whether the version is synchronized, and whether the dates and change marks are consistent with the proofreading records | Trigger an interaction, check the node status in the run records, and use nodeId to locate that node |
| Proofreading record | Whether the name, quantity, date, and receipt of each round of proofreading are consistent with the three-review form | Reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial once to check the branch direction |
| Progress table and statistical scope statement | Whether the record count and statistical count match, whether the scope is written in the header, and whether exceptions are clearly stated | Use one week of records to verify the totals, and compare the header scope and exception notes item by item |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the three-review form and the proofreading record. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, without cross-verification and a unified scope.
- Symptom: The proof version is not synchronized, and the proofreading record still points to the old version. Cause: After the version is updated, it is not written back to the proofreading record, and there is no synchronization confirmation between materials.
- Symptom: The three-review form lacks a signature or the proofreading record lacks a receipt. Cause: The process nodes do not enforce trace retention, and receipts are not archived together with the records.
How to verify the setup
For this function's acceptance: run trials on each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run records, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and that after the interaction is completed the process continues and the same session does not enter the interaction repeatedly.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the totals, see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated, and whether the record count and statistical count match.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and confirm that each option corresponds to one branch.
- Trigger an interaction, check the node status in the run records, and reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes to run a trial once.