What this category's data looks like
In the deployment, operations, and application handover stage, peer review organizations mainly work with three types of materials: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation contains the manuscript number, expert name, invitation date, and receipt status; expert review comments contain the review conclusion, comment body, submission date, and signature; author revision notes contain point-by-point responses, revision locations, version number, and date. Materials are updated in batches, and each round of review produces a new version. When entering workflow orchestration, review invitations serve as the trigger entry point, expert review comments serve as the basis for branch decisions, and author revision notes serve as the execution input for subsequent nodes. The three types of materials must remain consistent in three aspects—version, connections, and task records—before a handover-ready deployment state and operation record can be formed.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. The handover-ready deployment state and operation record 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 | Whether the expert name, invitation date, and receipt status are consistent between the invitation and the deployment record | Check the invitation records against the deployment state one by one, and inspect the branch connection corresponding to nodeId |
| Expert review comments | Whether the names and counts of review conclusions, submission dates, and signatures are aligned between the two materials | Compare the comment list with the task record, and confirm that the variables reference has been passed to subsequent nodes |
| Author revision notes | Whether revision locations, version number, date, and signature receipt are complete | Check the revision notes against the deployment version item by item according to the handover form, and run a trial once to see the branch direction |
| Deployment state and operation record | Whether version, connections, and task records are consistent | Trigger an interaction once, and inspect the node status and branch direction in the run record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, count, or date of the same review comment does not match between the two materials. Cause: The materials were entered separately without cross-checking, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Symptom: The author revision notes are missing a signature or receipt. Cause: During handover, the checklist was not checked item by item, and the signature item was omitted.
- Symptom: After selecting an option, the default branch is still followed. Cause: The options and branch connections were not checked one by one, and the process stops after the interaction is completed.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Run a trial for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that the variables and nodeId references are correct.
Business testing: Check once item by item according to the handover form to see which record is missing, focusing on the fields, dates, and signatures of review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and confirm that each option corresponds to one branch.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once to inspect the interaction state record and branch direction.