What this category's data looks like
Peer review organizations routinely circulate three types of materials: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation contains the manuscript title, proposed experts, proposed review deadline, invitation receipt, and signature field; review comments contain the manuscript number, review conclusion, itemized comments, date, and expert signature; revision notes contain the author's itemized responses, revision locations, version number, and date. The materials come from editorial system exports, email receipts, and manuscript platform attachments, and their update cadence rolls with review rounds, with each round producing a new version. After entering this feature, review invitations take on the role of initiation and receipt verification, review comments take on the role of conclusion and signature verification, and revision notes take on the role of responses and version comparison; together, the three support terminology extraction and full-document consistency verification for the unified terminology list and the comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branches), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. The "unified terminology list and comparison draft" is continued and completed by subsequent nodes according to the branches.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Check the fields, dates, and signatures of the review invitation: whether the manuscript number, proposed experts, proposed review deadline, receipt status, and signature field are complete, and verify whether the name and date of the same record are consistent between the invitation and the receipt | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the user selection node, trigger it once, then view the node status in the run record to confirm the direction of the invitation-type branch |
| Expert review comments | Check the fields, dates, and signatures of the review comments: the manuscript number, review conclusion, itemized comments, expert signature, and date, and verify whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the comments and the revision notes | Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once, check whether the comments-type branch enters according to the selected option, and verify the result passed by variables |
| Author revision notes | Check the fields, dates, and signatures of the revision notes: the author's itemized responses, revision locations, version number, date, and receipt, and verify whether the version is synchronized and whether signatures or receipts are missing | Check the options and branch connections in the node, record nodeId and the branch direction, and confirm the revision-notes-type branch and version synchronization status |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same manuscript do not match across the two materials. Cause: The review invitation and review comments are entered separately, without alignment and verification according to the fields of the same record.
- Symptom: The revision notes version is not synchronized, and the responses point to the old manuscript. Cause: After a new version is uploaded, the branch still follows the old manuscript path, and the interaction status is not updated with the version.
- Symptom: Review comments or receipts lack signatures or receipts. Cause: The signature field and receipt field are not included in branch judgment, and the process stops after the interaction is completed.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run trials option by option, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch and that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and record variables, nodeId, and the branch direction.
Business test: sample three terms to check whether their usage is consistent throughout the document, and confirm that the translated names can refer back to the source text.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the user selection node, trigger it once, then view the node status in the run record to confirm that no default branch is mistakenly followed.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once, confirm that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed, and record
variablesandnodeId.