What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on three types of materials for peer review organizations: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation contains the invitation date, expert name, and receipt signature; expert review comments contain the comment date, number of items, and expert signature; author revision notes contain the revision date, point-by-point responses, and author signature. Materials are updated by round, and versions within the same round must be synchronized. When entering workflow orchestration, the review invitation serves as the trigger source, expert review comments serve as the basis for review, and author revision notes serve as the reference material before disposition. Field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature. Exception tracing requires item-by-item comparison of the original records with each material version, and manual review requires confirming that signatures and receipts are complete before handing over to the responsible person for disposition.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch direction and interaction state records. The exception list and review conclusions are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. 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 | The three fields of invitation date, expert name, and receipt signature must be consistent with the corresponding records in the expert review comments; the date must not be later than the comment date, and the receipt must have a signature | In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger the user selection node once, and view the node status in the run record; reference variables and nodeId to locate the branch direction corresponding to this invitation |
| Expert review comments | The three fields of comment date, number of items, and expert signature must match the expert name and date of the review invitation, and the number of items must be consistent with the number of point-by-point responses in the author revision notes | In a subsequent node, reference the selection result variable and run a test once, check whether the number of comment items equals the number of responses in the revision notes, and check whether the signature is missing |
| Author revision notes | The three fields of revision date, point-by-point responses, and author signature must connect with the items and date of the expert review comments, and the version number must be synchronized with other materials in the same round | Trigger the user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, check whether the revision note version is synchronized with materials in the same round, and confirm that signatures and receipts are complete |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The expert name or date of the same record does not match between the review invitation and the expert review comments. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, without field-level comparison and version locking.
- Symptom: The version of the author revision notes is not synchronized, and the number of items is inconsistent with the expert review comments. Cause: After the revision notes are updated, they are not written back to materials in the same round, and a version synchronization check is missing.
- Symptom: The review invitation lacks a receipt signature, or the expert review comments lack an expert signature. Cause: Signatures and receipts are not included as required fields in the review, and manual review does not confirm them item by item.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run a test for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and reference variables and nodeId to check the branch connections.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether the source material can be traced, confirm that the exception is supported by original records and has a reviewer signature, then hand it over to the responsible person for disposition.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger the user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed.
- In a subsequent node, reference the selection result variable and run a test once, and check whether the name, quantity, date, and signature in the exception list can be traced to the original records of the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes.