fcr-reporting-and-data-policy

Reporting & Data Policy (fcr-reporting-and-data-policy)

FCR does not just want results — it wants the agronomic context that makes them interpretable and

reproducible, plus a statement of data availability at submission. Build these as you go so they

do not stall the submission.

When to trigger

• Assembling the methods section for completeness before submission
• Writing the data-availability statement required at submission
• Deciding whether to co-submit a dataset/method to Data in Brief / MethodsX
• Disclosing any use of generative AI in preparing the manuscript

Reporting completeness (FCR-specific)

A field-crop paper is reproducible only if the methods report all of:

• [ ] Crop & cultivar(s) and, where relevant, maturity group / genotype identity
• [ ] Site(s) & seasons with coordinates; the environments and what they represent
• [ ] Soil properties (type, texture, relevant chemistry) for each site
• [ ] Weather (radiation, temperature, rainfall) shown in relation to crop phenology
• [ ] Management: sowing date/density, fertilisation, irrigation, crop protection, tillage
• [ ] Experimental design: layout, randomization, replication, plot size, guard rows
• [ ] Statistics: model, error structure, software/version (see fcr-data-analysis)
• [ ] Yield data (encouraged) and the biophysical processes linked to it

Data availability (state it at submission)

1. Declare availability. FCR/Elsevier requires authors to **state the availability of any data at

submission**; the statement is published with the article on ScienceDirect.

1. Share where possible. Deposit data in a recognised repository (e.g., Mendeley Data, or a

domain repository) and cite it with a persistent identifier; FCR datasets are hosted openly under

Creative Commons terms on Mendeley Data.

1. If data cannot be shared. State the reason (e.g., sensitive, confidential, or

provider-restricted) in the data-availability statement during submission.

1. Co-submission. Standalone datasets or methods can be forwarded to Data in Brief /

MethodsX alongside the article.

Other declarations

• Generative AI. Declare any use of generative-AI tools in the manuscript-preparation process at

submission, per Elsevier policy.

• Ethics / authorship / conflicts. Standard Elsevier declarations (CRediT roles, competing

interests, funding) where applicable.

Minimum agronomic metadata table (what an FCR methods reviewer audits)

A methods reviewer for a field-crop journal reads for reproducibility line by line. The gaps that draw

"cannot evaluate" comments are predictable; carry this table so each item is on the page, not in a lab

notebook.

| Block | Must report | Why FCR cares |

|-------|-------------|---------------|

| Genotype | cultivar name, maturity group, seed source/year | G×E claims need genotype identity |

| Environment | site coordinates, elevation, seasons, what each environment represents | defines the target population of environments |

| Soil | classification, texture, depth, pH, organic C, available N/P/K | yield response is soil-conditional |

| Weather | radiation, max/min temperature, rainfall, aligned to phenology | lets readers interpret G×E |

| Management | sowing date/density, N/P/K rate and timing, irrigation, crop protection, tillage | the "M" in G×E×M |

| Design | layout, randomization, replication, plot size, guard rows | error structure depends on it |

Worked data-availability vignette (illustrative)

Illustrative; figures are for demonstration only. A multi-environment trial of two wheat cultivars

across 3 seasons × 5 sites (15 site-years) reports grain yields of 4.2–7.8 t ha⁻¹ and a per-plot

dataset of N rate, anthesis date, and yield. Drafting the statement: the plot-level table (15

site-years × 4 N rates × 3 reps ≈ 180 rows) is non-sensitive, so deposit it in Mendeley Data under

Creative Commons, cite it with the DOI, and state "data are openly available at [DOI]." One site's

soil-survey layer is licensed from a provider that forbids redistribution — for that layer only, state

the restriction and its reason rather than leaving a blanket "available on request." The published

statement must let a reader regenerate every yield mean and SED in the results. Check the repository

and statement wording against the journal's author guidelines during the final upload-week pass.

Anti-patterns

• A methods section missing soil, weather-vs-phenology, or management detail (not reproducible)
• Leaving the data-availability statement blank or to the last minute
• "Data available on request" with no reason and no repository where sharing was feasible
• Forgetting the generative-AI declaration
• Reported yields that the deposited data or analysis cannot regenerate
• Depositing summary means only, so the plot-level structure (blocks, sub-plots) cannot be reconstructed

Output format

【Reporting complete?】cultivar + site/season + soil + weather-vs-phenology + management + design + stats? [Y/N]
【Yield data linked to process?】[Y/N]
【Data-availability statement】shared (repo + ID) / restricted (reason) — drafted? [Y/N]
【Co-submission】Data in Brief / MethodsX relevant? [Y/N/NA]
【Generative-AI declaration】[Y/N/NA]
【Next】fcr-writing-style

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — data repositories and reproducibility tooling
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — data-availability, AI-disclosure, and reporting policy