fcr-topic-selection

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)

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — agronomy data sources and crop models
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — FCR scope and the explicit exclusions