---
name: fcr-writing-style
description: Use when drafting or polishing a Field Crops Research (FCR) manuscript so it reads for a general agronomy/crop-science audience, follows FCR structure, and meets the format expectations (abstract <=400 words, 3-5 highlights of <=85 characters, grammatically sound English, concise results, a discussion that interprets rather than repeats). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
---

# Writing Style (fcr-writing-style)

An FCR paper must be readable by an agronomist or crop scientist outside your exact crop and region,
written in **grammatically sound English**, and disciplined to FCR's structure: a focused
introduction, complete methods, **concise results that address the objectives**, and a **discussion
that interprets rather than restates** results. This skill is about clarity and format — not about
generating claims.

## When to trigger

- Drafting the introduction, results, or discussion, or doing a final polish
- Writing the **abstract** (≤ 400 words) and the **highlights** (3–5 bullets)
- Tightening a verbose results or discussion section
- Aligning citations and units to the Elsevier/FCR style before submission

## Structure & section discipline

1. **Introduction.** Brief, unbiased, up-to-date review that flows to clear **objectives or
   hypotheses** of general relevance (see `fcr-literature-positioning`).
2. **Materials & Methods.** Complete enough to reproduce: crop/cultivar, sites/seasons, soil, weather,
   management, design, and statistics (see `fcr-reporting-and-data-policy`).
3. **Results.** **Concise**; report what answers the objectives, with effect sizes and uncertainty.
   Do not interpret here.
4. **Discussion.** **Place findings in agronomic context** and justify conclusions with the data — do
   **not** repeat the results. State scope/limitations and generality across environments.

## Abstract & highlights

- **Abstract** (**≤ 400 words**): purpose, key methods (crop, environments),
  principal quantitative results, and the major agronomic conclusion.
- **Highlights**: **3–5 bullet points, each ≤ 85 characters including spaces** — concrete findings,
  not topic labels.

## Reach a general agronomy audience

- Define crop- or region-specific terms on first use; spell out acronyms; use **SI units** throughout.
- Lead with the agronomic point; connect results to **yield and biophysical processes**.
- Quantify ("a 0.8 t ha⁻¹ increase," not "a large increase"); avoid vague significance language.
- Signpost clearly so a reader can follow the argument from objective to conclusion.

## Vague-to-quantified rewrite table

FCR rewards the quantified, agronomic sentence over the qualitative one. Each row shows the upgrade an
editor expects between draft and submission.

| Vague draft | Quantified, FCR-ready (illustrative) |
|-------------|--------------------------------------|
| "Yield increased substantially." | "Yield rose 0.9 t ha⁻¹ (12%) in high-N environments." |
| "The treatment was significant." | "The N×cultivar interaction was significant (SED = 0.15 t ha⁻¹, α = 0.05)." |

## Worked discussion-rewrite vignette (illustrative)

*Illustrative.* A results-echoing discussion opens: "As shown in Table 3, the new cultivar yielded 0.9
t ha⁻¹ more than the check" — restating the result, the most common FCR reviewer complaint. The
interpretive rewrite leads with the **mechanism and its generality**: "The advantage concentrated in
high-N environments, consistent with greater post-anthesis N remobilisation in the stay-green line; in
the two dry site-years it vanished, marking water — not N — as limiting." Now the paragraph explains
*why* and bounds *where* it travels — the move from local report to general contribution.

## Anti-patterns

- A discussion that repeats the results instead of interpreting them
- A region-insider framing that never states general relevance
- An abstract that hides the quantitative finding or runs far over length
- Highlights that are topics ("Effects of nitrogen on wheat") rather than findings
- Non-SI units, undefined acronyms, or inconsistent citation style
- Conclusions not justified by the data


## Style execution 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:** Rewrite the first two pages so each paragraph starts from the venue-level claim, not from chronology or method inventory; preserve exact source-map limits and move technical overflow to appendix or supplement.
- **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

```
【Structure】intro → methods → concise results → interpretive discussion? [Y/N]
【Discussion interprets, not repeats?】[Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤400) + states quantitative finding? [Y/N]
【Highlights】3-5 bullets, each ≤85 chars, findings not topics? [Y/N]
【General reach】SI units + acronyms defined + quantified? [Y/N]
【Next】fcr-cover-letter
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reference managers and Elsevier typesetting tools
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — abstract/highlights specs and structure expectations