| name | fcr-workflow |
| description | Use as the entry point for any Field Crops Research (FCR) manuscript. Routes to the right FCR sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (Original Research Paper, Review, Short Communication, Opinion, Loomis Review) fits. It checks scope-fit first — FCR rejects controlled-environment-only and single-site single-season work — then dispatches; it does not draft content. |
FCR Workflow Router (fcr-workflow)
The orchestrator for a Field Crops Research submission. Figure out the stage and the article type,
then send the user to the matching skill. FCR is an empirical field-agronomy journal — the
router's first job is a scope gate: is this genuine field-based research with multi-season
and/or multi-environment relevance? If not, fix that before anything else.
When to trigger
- Starting a new FCR paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding which article type fits the work
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
fcr-revision-and-rebuttal)
Scope gate (ask first, every time)
| Question | If "no" |
|---|
| Is it field-based (not greenhouse/pot/root-restricting only)? | Likely out of scope → fcr-topic-selection |
| Does it have ≥ 2 seasons and/or multiple environments? | Redesign or reframe → fcr-experimental-design |
| Is the crop a field crop (not horticultural/woody-perennial/non-cultivated)? | Out of scope → fcr-topic-selection |
| Is it more than corroborative / descriptive / local? | Sharpen the contribution → fcr-topic-selection |
First question: which article type?
| Situation | Article type | Route to |
|---|
| Full original field/modelling study | Original Research Paper | normal pipeline below |
| Concise, complete, focused study | Short Communication | normal pipeline, tighter scope |
| Critical synthesis of a topic | Review (usually invited; propose first) | fcr-literature-positioning + fcr-topic-selection |
| Perspective / position piece | Opinion Paper | fcr-topic-selection + fcr-writing-style |
| Invited major review | Loomis Review (by invitation) | fcr-literature-positioning |
Routing map (stage → skill)
Idea / scope fit? → fcr-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → fcr-literature-positioning
Is the design defensible? → fcr-experimental-design
Are the analyses sound? → fcr-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → fcr-figures-and-tables
Data availability & reporting? → fcr-reporting-and-data-policy
Does it read for agronomists? → fcr-writing-style
Need a cover letter? → fcr-cover-letter
How will it be judged? → fcr-review-process
Ready to submit? → fcr-submission
Got a decision / revision? → fcr-revision-and-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → experimental-design → data-analysis → figures-and-tables → reporting-and-data-policy → writing-style → cover-letter → review-process → submission → revision-and-rebuttal
Iterate: most papers loop design ↔ analysis ↔ figures several times before writing-style.
Desk-reject triage table (route before you draft)
The Editors-in-Chief screen for scope before a manuscript reaches reviewers; most fast rejections are predictable. Catch them here and route to the repair skill instead of polishing prose on a paper that cannot pass the gate.
| Symptom an editor sees | FCR-specific risk | Route to |
|---|
| Pot/greenhouse trial is the only evidence | Out of scope (controlled-environment exclusion) | fcr-topic-selection |
| One site × one season, no environment spread | Fails the ≥2-seasons/-environments expectation | fcr-experimental-design |
| Tomato, grapevine, turfgrass, or medicinal species | Wrong journal (horticultural/woody-perennial exclusion) | fcr-topic-selection |
| "First measurement of trait X in region Y" | Local/descriptive, not general insight | fcr-literature-positioning |
| ANOVA on pooled plots, blocking ignored | Statistics do not match the trial structure | fcr-data-analysis |
| Yields reported, no link to a biophysical process | Weak agronomic significance | fcr-literature-positioning |
Worked routing vignette (illustrative)
Illustrative scenario, numbers chosen to demonstrate the gate — not real data. A team has a new
drought-tolerant maize hybrid yielding 8.4 t ha⁻¹ versus a 7.1 t ha⁻¹ check, measured at one farm in
one season. They ask where to begin a manuscript. The router runs the scope gate: field-based (pass),
field crop (pass), but one site-year fails the multi-environment expectation and the 1.3 t ha⁻¹
margin sits at a single point in the G×E space. Verdict: do not enter the drafting pipeline yet —
route to fcr-experimental-design to add seasons/sites (e.g., 2 seasons × 4 environments) so the
hybrid advantage can be shown to hold across environments, then resume the default order. Routing a
half-evidenced paper into writing-style first is the classic wasted cycle.
Anti-patterns
- Skipping the scope gate and investing in controlled-environment-only or single-site data
- Treating one season at one site as enough (FCR expects multi-season/-environment relevance)
- Forcing a Review/Opinion frame onto what is really an Original Research Paper
- Leaving the data-availability statement and highlights to the last minute
- Polishing format on a paper whose G×E×M evidence cannot yet support a general yield claim
Output format
【Scope gate】field-based? multi-environment? field crop? more than local? [pass/fix]
【Stage】idea / positioning / design / analysis / exhibits / reporting / writing / cover / review / submit / revise
【Article type】Original Research / Short Communication / Review / Opinion / Loomis Review
【Route to】fcr-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
