What this category's data looks like
The materials of a peer review organization mainly consist of review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes, and the three are often grouped into the same record by manuscript number. A review invitation includes the invitation date and the expert's confirmation receipt; review comments include the review date and signature; revision notes include the author's reply date and item-by-item correspondence. The update rhythm advances with the manuscript status, from invitation being sent to comments being collected, and then to revision submission, with materials at each stage accumulating version by version. When materials enter workflow orchestration, the review invitation serves as the trigger entry point, review comments serve as the basis for branch decisions, and revision notes serve as the visible content for external services. Authorized access requires identity and visibility scope to match; parents or superiors can see only the external part corresponding to their manuscript, and unauthorized content is not visible.
Configuration and implementation checks
This link is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branches), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. "Externally available entry points and authorization scope" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Whether the invitation date and the expert's confirmation receipt are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same manuscript are consistent across the two materials | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and use nodeId to locate the invitation record |
| Expert review comments | Whether the review date and signature are complete, and whether the version is synchronized with the revision notes | Trigger once, view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the comment version corresponds to the revision notes |
| Author revision notes | Whether the author's reply date and item-by-item correspondence are complete, and whether they are visible when a signature or receipt is missing | Reference variables in a subsequent node and run a test once to check the external visibility scope |
| Authorized access scope | Whether the visitor's identity matches the visibility scope, and whether unauthorized content is not visible | Access once with a restricted identity, and check the visible items after variables values are passed |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same manuscript do not match between the review invitation and the revision notes. Cause: The two materials were entered separately and were not merged and checked under the same record.
- Symptom: The expert review comment version is not synchronized with the author revision notes. Cause: After the revision notes were submitted, they were not written back to the corresponding review comment record.
- Symptom: The review comments lack a signature or receipt, but the external service still displays them as complete. Cause: The branch decision did not validate the signature field and directly entered the externally visible branch.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: run tests option by option, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that the branch corresponding to nodeId is consistent with the option.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, see whether the visibility scope matches the setting, and ensure unauthorized items are not visible.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and use
nodeIdto locate it. - Reference
variablesin a subsequent node and run a test once, and check whether the interaction state record and the selection result variable are passed to the subsequent node.