What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the exception tracing and manual review scenario for peer review organizations, and the materials come from three types of records: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. Review invitations carry the invitation time, expert identity, and receipt status; expert review comments carry the review conclusion, the comment body, and the submission date; author revision notes carry the point-by-point responses, the revision locations, and the confirmation signature. The materials enter in batches as the manuscript moves through the process, and the update rhythm is synchronized with review rounds, with each round producing a new version. The three types of materials serve as mutual references in exception tracing: invitation records locate the expert and the time, review comments verify the conclusion and date, and revision notes verify the responses and signature. The field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature; the version number and receipt status are the key to judging whether synchronization has occurred.
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 "exception list and review conclusion" is parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by an external system according to the agreement to complete the rest. The request URL, path parameters, request headers, and request body can all reference global variables, system variables, or outputs from preceding nodes via variables, and authentication information is placed in Authorization according to the external system's requirements.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The name, date, and receipt status of the invitation record must be consistent with the submission time of the expert review comments | Retrieve the invitation record and the review comments, verify the expert name, invitation date, and receipt field, and confirm whether the signature or receipt is complete |
| Expert review comments | The conclusion, date, and signature of the comment body must correspond to the response entries in the author revision notes | Compare the comment entries with the point-by-point responses in the revision notes, verify the quantity, date, and signature, and check whether the version number is synchronized |
| Author revision notes | The response entries in the revision notes must be supported by the original review comments and carry a confirmation signature | Extract one revision note, trace it back to the corresponding review comments and invitation record, and verify the three fields of name, quantity, and date |
| HTTP response | The response body and status code must be able to locate the source material, and the returned fields include responseData | Verify the rendered URL and request headers in the request preview, and use one sample request to compare the returned fields with the source record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same expert's name is written differently in two materials, and the dates differ by several days. Cause: the field conventions were not unified at entry time, and versions were not synchronized, leaving old records behind.
- Symptom: the number of response entries in the revision notes exceeds the number of review comment entries, so the quantities do not match. Cause: newly added comments were not backfilled into the revision notes, or the count was not updated when entries were merged.
- Symptom: the review conclusion lacks the reviewer's signature or receipt, so it cannot be handed to the person in charge for handling. Cause: the signature step was skipped, and the receipt was not returned to the external system according to the agreement.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: preview the rendered request, verify the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample to confirm that the value sources of variables and Authorization are traceable.
Business test: create one exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, and verify whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent.
- In the variable panel, verify the source of each placeholder and confirm that the
variablesin the path parameters, request headers, and request body can be resolved into actual values. - Extract one exception record, compare the name, quantity, date, and signature across the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes, record the inconsistencies, and hand them to the person in charge for handling.