Fcr submission

Submission Preflight (fcr-submission)

The last check before pressing submit on Editorial Manager at submit.elsevier.com/FIELD. FCR's most common avoidable failures are scope mismatch and incomplete reporting / declarations. Check upload-week specifics on the official Elsevier guide before relying on editor names, prices, file prompts, or article-type menus (see ../../resources/official-source-map.md).

When to trigger

• "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
• Unsure which files/metadata Editorial Manager expects
• Confirming scope fit, format, and declarations are complete

Process facts

• Publisher: Elsevier (ISSN 0378-4290).
• Portal: Editorial Manager at submit.elsevier.com/FIELD.
• Review model: single anonymized — typically ≥ 2 reviewers.
• Article types: Original Research Paper · Short Communication · Review (usually invited) · Opinion Paper · Loomis Review (invited).
• Abstract: ≤ 400 words.
• Highlights: 3–5 bullets, each ≤ 85 characters including spaces.
• Multi-environment rule: field experiments should span ≥ 2 seasons and/or multiple environments (unless exceptional circumstances are justified).
• Data availability: must be stated at submission.
• Generative AI: declare any use in manuscript preparation.

Preflight checklist

Scope & type

• Field-based, multi-season/-environment, a field crop, generally significant (see fcr-topic-selection)
• Article type chosen; Review/Opinion proposal cleared with editors if required

Manuscript & format

• Abstract ≤ 400 words; states purpose, environments, quantitative result, conclusion
• 3–5 highlights, each ≤ 85 characters, findings not topics
• Structure: focused intro → complete methods → concise results → interpretive discussion
• SI units; consistent Elsevier/FCR reference style; grammatically sound English
• Figures/tables self-contained with units and SED/LSD/CI (see fcr-figures-and-tables)

Reporting completeness

• Crop/cultivar, sites/seasons, soil, weather vs. phenology, management, design, statistics
• Yield data included/linked to biophysical process where relevant

Declarations & files

• Data-availability statement drafted (shared + repository/ID, or restricted + reason)
• Generative-AI use declared; CRediT roles, funding, competing interests
• Cover letter establishing scope fit + contribution (see fcr-cover-letter)
• Co-submission to Data in Brief / MethodsX considered if relevant

Highlights bench-test (illustrative)

Highlights are findings, not topics, and the ≤85-character limit counts spaces. Bench-test each bullet.

Draft highlight	Chars	Verdict
"Effects of nitrogen on wheat yield and quality"	47	reject — a topic, not a finding
"New cultivar raised yield 0.9 t/ha in high-N environments only"	62	keep — quantified
"G×E explained 38% of yield variance across 8 site-years"	56	keep — names the result

Worked preflight vignette (illustrative)

Illustrative dry-run. A maize MET manuscript reaches the final pass: 2 seasons × 4 sites, abstract at 410 words, 6 highlights, a plot-level dataset, but no weather-vs-phenology figure. The preflight catches four blockers: trim the abstract under the 400-word cap; cut highlights to 5 and rewrite topic-style bullets as findings; add the weather-vs-phenology panel so the G×E is interpretable; and draft the data-availability statement to the Mendeley Data DOI. Scope and statistics pass, so once fixed the package is ready for Editorial Manager.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting controlled-environment-only or single-site/single-season work
• Abstract over length; highlights that are topics or exceed 85 characters
• Methods missing soil/weather-vs-phenology/management (not reproducible)
• Blank data-availability statement; missing generative-AI declaration
• A discussion that repeats results; means with no error term

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

【Scope & type】field-based + ≥2 seasons/envs + field crop + general; type chosen? [Y/N]
【Abstract & highlights】≤400 words; 3-5 bullets ≤85 chars? [Y/N]
【Reporting complete】cultivar/site/soil/weather-vs-phenology/management/design/stats? [Y/N]
【Declarations】data availability + generative-AI + CRediT/funding? [Y/N]
【Cover letter】scope fit + contribution stated? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → fcr-revision-and-rebuttal on a revise verdict

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — reference managers and Elsevier typesetting/templates
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official FCR URLs behind every fact in this pack