From fcr-skills
Positions a Field Crops Research manuscript as a general contribution to field-crop science by engaging the agronomy and crop-science literature to establish the gap and agronomic stakes.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/fcr-skills:fcr-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
FCR will not consider findings that are **corroborative, descriptive, or of only local significance**.
FCR will not consider findings that are corroborative, descriptive, or of only local significance. Positioning is therefore where you prove the work is new and general. The goal is to place the paper where an agronomist or crop scientist anywhere can see the gap, the mechanism, and the advance.
fcr-experimental-design).| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| an agronomic / management study | the crop-physiology literature explaining the response |
| a physiology study | the agronomy/yield literature it bears on |
| a yield-gap analysis | the modelling and benchmarking literature (e.g., GYGA, simulation) |
| a modelling paper | the field-experiment literature used for calibration/validation |
| a breeding/genetics study | the G×E and agronomy literature linking traits to field yield |
The single most common positioning failure at FCR is a real, well-run study framed as a regional report. Each row turns a local frame the editors would screen out into the general, mechanism-anchored claim the journal rewards.
| Local framing (screened out) | General framing FCR rewards |
|---|---|
| "First N-response curve for cultivar C in region R" | "N-use efficiency of stay-green genotypes is set by post-anthesis uptake, not total N — tested across 6 environments" |
| "Intercropping raised yield on our station" | "Intercrop overyielding is conditional on radiation-limited vs. water-limited environments — a transferable rule" |
| "Our model fit the local trial well" | "A recalibrated phenology routine closes the simulated-vs-observed anthesis bias across a rainfall gradient" |
| "Residue retention helped here" | "Residue effect on yield reverses sign between cool-wet and hot-dry seasons, explaining literature disagreement" |
Illustrative scenario; the contested-effect framing is the point, not the numbers. Prior papers disagree on whether a deficit-irrigation schedule lifts or lowers maize water-use efficiency (WUE). A team has 2 seasons × 3 sites spanning a vapour-pressure-deficit gradient and finds WUE rises ~12% under deficit at high-VPD sites but falls ~5% at the cool site. The weak (rejected) framing: "deficit irrigation improves WUE in our trials." The FCR framing positions against the mechanism and the disagreement: prior work conflates two environment types; the WUE response is conditional on evaporative demand, which reconciles the contested literature and predicts where the practice travels. That move — naming the unresolved general question, then resolving it across environments with a transferable mechanism — is what lifts the paper above "local and corroborative."
【Open question】the unresolved agronomic/physiological issue
【Key works】the 4-8 that define it (incl. cross-topic and beyond your region)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / unexplained across environments
【Move】how this paper advances field-crop science generally
【Generality】why it travels beyond the trial sites
【Next】fcr-experimental-design
../../resources/external_tools.md — yield-gap and reference datasets for benchmarking../../resources/official-source-map.md — FCR novelty/generality requirement and exclusionsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin fcr-skillsPressure-tests whether an agronomy or crop-science project fits Field Crops Research's scope and selects the appropriate article type. Use when assessing project relevance or responding to scope-related reviewer feedback.
Evaluates manuscript fit for Field Crops Research journal, covering scope, evidence bar, and desk-reject heuristics for agronomy and crop-physiology papers.
Positions agricultural systems manuscripts so editors and reviewers see a systems-science contribution. Useful when a paper reads as single-discipline or a reviewer questioned the systems framing.