What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenarios of journal three-stage review, three-stage proofreading, and editorial quality. The materials cover three-stage review forms, proofs, proofreading records, and multilingual comparison drafts. The sources are the circulation files from each stage of the editorial process, and the update cadence advances with the review rounds and proofreading rounds. The field characteristics center on review round, proofreading round, date, signature, and receipt, as well as the way the same term is written in different languages and different materials. When the materials enter this function, the three-stage review form plays the role of process and responsibility record, the proof plays the role of text and terminology presentation, the proofreading record plays the role of difference and revision trace, and the multilingual comparison draft plays the role of translated term and source-text back-reference. After document parsing and chunking, each material is converted into retrievable data rows, and terminology consistency and translated-term back-reference are compared during retrieval and subsequent processing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the parsing and training task (server-side task), which outputs data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "unified terminology glossary and comparison draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-stage review form | The review round, date, and signature are written consistently in the three-stage review form and the proofreading record, and the receipt is not missing | Separately check the review round, date, signature, and receipt in the three-stage review form and the proofreading record |
| Proof | The same term is written consistently throughout, the translated term can back-reference the source text, and the version is in sync with the review round | Check by chunkSize and chunkSplitter whether terms remain consistent across chunks after chunking |
| Proofreading record | The name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the three-stage review form and the proofreading record | Check the fields and dates of the same record in the two materials |
| Multilingual comparison draft | Translated terms correspond to the source text, and the terminology glossary and comparison draft versions are in sync | Check the training mode and index status by trainingType |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the three-stage review form and the proofreading record. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-level comparison and receipt checking.
- Symptom: The proof and the multilingual comparison draft versions are not in sync, and terminology usage is inconsistent. Cause: After the review round advanced, the comparison draft and terminology glossary were not updated in sync.
- Symptom: The three-stage review form lacks a signature or receipt, and the process record is incomplete. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not archived in sync with the review round, and material circulation was interrupted.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: upload one material and observe the data row status transitions and the coverage of the rebuild task.
Business test: sample three terms and check whether their usage is consistent throughout.
- Open the data row and check whether the status is parsed, indexing, or indexed, and whether it matches the interface display.
- Separately check the identifiers of the file record and the data row to confirm that the two identities are distinguishable.