| name | fcr-topic-selection |
| description | Use when deciding whether an agronomy or crop-science project fits Field Crops Research (FCR) and which article type to target. FCR's defining test is field-based agronomic significance with multi-season/-environment relevance — it rejects controlled-environment-only, single-site single-season, horticultural/woody-perennial, and corroborative/descriptive/local-only work. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data. |
Topic Selection & Scope Fit (fcr-topic-selection)
FCR is a field-agronomy journal. The bar is not "a new result in my plot" — it is "a field-based
insight of general relevance to field crops." Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you
invest, because FCR's scope boundary is strict and a mismatch is a fast desk rejection.
When to trigger
- Choosing among possible projects or framings for an FCR submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the work feels "controlled-environment," "too local," or "descriptive"
- Deciding between an Original Research Paper and a Short Communication
- Considering a Review or Opinion piece (propose to the Editors-in-Chief first)
The FCR scope gate (must clear all four)
- Field-based. Conducted in the field, not exclusively under controlled conditions
(greenhouse, pots, or any system that constricts root growth). A controlled-environment
component is fine only when integrated with, and subordinate to, field results.
- Multi-season / multi-environment relevance. Field experiments should, unless exceptional
circumstances apply, span at least two seasons and/or multiple locations/environments. A
single-site, single-season trial usually fails the gate.
- A field crop. Crops grown for food, fibre, feed, or biofuel. Out of scope:
horticultural (vegetable/fruit) species, woody perennials, medicinal and non-cultivated species,
and natural grasslands.
- General significance, not local/descriptive. Must show new scientific insight, original
technology, or a novel method of general application — not corroborative, purely descriptive, or
of only local interest.
Frame the agronomic contribution
| Angle | Make it FCR-worthy by… |
|---|
| Yield / yield gap | quantify the gap vs. potential/water-limited yield and what closes it |
| Crop physiology | connect a process (RUE, WUE, partitioning, phenology) to yield formation |
| Agronomy / management | show a management response that travels across environments, with G×E×M |
| Cropping systems | demonstrate system-level effects (rotation, intercrop, residue) over seasons |
| Crop modelling | calibrate/validate against field data and use the model to generalise beyond the sites |
Including yield data is encouraged — it ties the work to the biophysical processes FCR cares about.
Article-type choice
- Original Research Paper — full field/modelling study, multi-environment, general relevance.
- Short Communication — one complete, focused finding that will not be part of a later paper.
- Review — critical synthesis; normally invited, but send a brief proposal/outline to the
Editors-in-Chief first.
- Opinion Paper — a reasoned perspective on an issue in field-crop science.
- Loomis Review — major review by invitation only.
Scope-boundary calls (borderline cases ruled)
The gate is strict, so the hard calls are the borderline ones. These rulings reflect FCR's stated
exclusions; confirm the current scope wording against the journal's aims & scope, which can change.
| Borderline case | Likely call | Reason |
|---|
| Greenhouse mechanism + one supporting field season | In scope only if field results are the spine | controlled-environment cannot be main evidence |
| Maize agronomy, 2 seasons, 1 site | Borderline — add sites or a modelling generalisation | one location weakens multi-environment relevance |
| Potato tuber-quality trial | Likely out — horticultural framing | vegetable/horticultural species risk |
| Forage grass in a cropping rotation | In scope as a feed crop; natural grassland is out | cultivated vs. non-cultivated grassland |
| Crop model validated on others' field data | In scope if it generalises field results | modelling that extends field evidence is welcome |
Worked scope vignette (illustrative)
Illustrative. A student has greenhouse data showing a root-architecture trait improves P uptake, plus
1 field season at 1 site (3.9 vs. 3.5 t ha⁻¹). As framed — "trait improves P uptake and yield" —
it fails twice: the mechanism rests on controlled-environment pots, and the field evidence is a single
site-year. The FCR-worthy reframe keeps the physiology as context and rebuilds the spine around the
field: test the trait's yield and P-uptake response across 2 seasons × 4 environments on a soil-P
gradient, so the claim becomes "the trait closes a P-limited yield gap across low-P environments."
Anti-patterns
- A pot/greenhouse-only study dressed up as agronomy (out of scope)
- "First time measured in my region" as the whole contribution (local/descriptive)
- One season at one site with no path to multi-environment relevance
- A horticultural, woody-perennial, or non-cultivated species (wrong journal)
- A result with no yield or biophysical-process link
Output format
【Question】one sentence
【Scope gate】field-based? ≥2 seasons/envs? field crop? more than local? [pass/fix each]
【Agronomic contribution】yield / physiology / management / systems / modelling
【Article type】Original Research / Short Communication / Review / Opinion / Loomis Review
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】fcr-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
