| name | fcr-cover-letter |
| description | Use when writing the cover letter for a Field Crops Research (FCR) submission to the Editors-in-Chief. The letter must establish scope fit (field-based, multi-season/-environment, a field crop, generally significant), state the novel contribution and article type, and confirm originality and data availability. Drafts the letter; it does not contact editors or invent claims. |
Cover Letter (fcr-cover-letter)
The cover letter is the editor's first scope check. Because FCR has a strict scope boundary, the
letter's job is to show — in a few sentences — that the paper is field-based, multi-environment, on a
field crop, and generally significant, and to name the novel contribution clearly. A vague
letter invites a fast desk rejection.
When to trigger
- Preparing the submission package and need the cover letter
- Pitching a Review or Opinion proposal to the Editors-in-Chief first
- Explaining why a borderline design (e.g., exceptional single-season circumstances) still fits scope
What an FCR cover letter must do
- Address the Editors-in-Chief and name the journal and the article type (Original Research
Paper / Short Communication / Review / Opinion).
- Establish scope fit in one short paragraph. State that the work is field-based, spans
≥ 2 seasons and/or multiple environments, concerns a field crop, and offers general
relevance (not local/descriptive). If a single-season design is unavoidable, justify the
"exceptional circumstances" explicitly.
- State the novel contribution. One or two sentences: what new scientific insight, technology, or
method of general application the paper provides, and the headline quantitative result.
- Confirm the essentials. Original work, not under consideration elsewhere; all authors approve;
a data-availability position; any generative-AI use disclosed; suggested/excluded reviewers
if the journal invites them.
- Be brief and specific. Roughly one page; no hype; let the agronomic significance speak.
Skeleton
Dear Editors-in-Chief,
We submit "[Title]" for consideration as an [article type] in Field Crops Research.
[Scope + contribution: field-based study across N seasons and M environments on
<field crop>; the novel finding is ___, quantified as ___; it matters generally
because ___.]
The work is original and not under consideration elsewhere; all authors approve
submission. Data availability: [shared in <repository> / restricted because ___].
[We did/did not use generative-AI tools, disclosed in the manuscript.]
[Optional: suggested reviewers / conflicts.]
Sincerely, [Corresponding author, affiliation, contact]
Scope-fit sentence bank (illustrative)
The editor's eye lands on one paragraph: does it clear the gate? Each row pairs a vague opener with one
that pre-clears the scope screen.
| Weak | Scope-clearing rewrite (illustrative) |
|---|
| "We studied nitrogen on wheat." | "Across 2 seasons and 5 environments, we quantify how N-use efficiency of wheat cultivars varies with N supply." |
| "This is the first such study in our area." | "We resolve a contested mechanism — whether deficit irrigation raises WUE — across a vapour-pressure-deficit gradient." |
Worked cover-letter vignette (illustrative)
Illustrative. Draft 1 of a maize-MET letter paraphrases the abstract and never names the article type
or environment spread — a letter the editor cannot scope-check. The repaired opening names it an
Original Research Paper, states the work is field-based across 2 seasons × 4 environments on
maize, gives the headline result (a 0.9 t ha⁻¹ environment-conditional advantage), and confirms
originality, data availability, and AI disclosure — letting the editor tick every scope box at once.
Anti-patterns
- A letter that summarises the abstract but never states scope fit
- Claiming novelty without the quantitative finding or its general relevance
- Hiding a single-site/single-season limitation instead of justifying it
- Overstating impact; emotional or boilerplate appeals
- Forgetting originality, data-availability, or AI-disclosure statements
Operating pass for Field Crops Research
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crop system, environment structure, GxE logic, and yield or physiology endpoint; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: agronomy reviewers who expect field-based, multi-environment evidence and crop-level general significance.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against Agricultural Systems for whole-system modeling, European Journal of Agronomy for agronomic breadth, Crop Science for cultivar or breeding emphasis; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Submission-ready gate: do not give final advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Article type】named? [Y/N]
【Scope fit stated】field-based + ≥2 seasons/envs + field crop + general? [Y/N]
【Contribution】novel insight + headline quantitative result stated? [Y/N]
【Declarations】originality + data availability + AI disclosure? [Y/N]
【Length/tone】~1 page, specific, no hype? [Y/N]
【Next】fcr-review-process
Supplementary resources
