---
name: fcr-cover-letter
description: Use when writing the cover letter for a Field Crops Research (FCR) submission to the Editors-in-Chief. The letter must establish scope fit (field-based, multi-season/-environment, a field crop, generally significant), state the novel contribution and article type, and confirm originality and data availability. Drafts the letter; it does not contact editors or invent claims.
---

# Cover Letter (fcr-cover-letter)

The cover letter is the editor's first scope check. Because FCR has a **strict scope boundary**, the
letter's job is to show — in a few sentences — that the paper is **field-based, multi-environment, on a
field crop, and generally significant**, and to name the **novel contribution** clearly. A vague
letter invites a fast desk rejection.

## When to trigger

- Preparing the submission package and need the cover letter
- Pitching a Review or Opinion proposal to the Editors-in-Chief first
- Explaining why a borderline design (e.g., exceptional single-season circumstances) still fits scope

## What an FCR cover letter must do

1. **Address the Editors-in-Chief** and name the journal and the **article type** (Original Research
   Paper / Short Communication / Review / Opinion).
2. **Establish scope fit in one short paragraph.** State that the work is **field-based**, spans
   **≥ 2 seasons and/or multiple environments**, concerns a **field crop**, and offers **general
   relevance** (not local/descriptive). If a single-season design is unavoidable, justify the
   "exceptional circumstances" explicitly.
3. **State the novel contribution.** One or two sentences: what new scientific insight, technology, or
   method of general application the paper provides, and the headline **quantitative** result.
4. **Confirm the essentials.** Original work, not under consideration elsewhere; all authors approve;
   a **data-availability** position; any **generative-AI** use disclosed; suggested/excluded reviewers
   if the journal invites them.
5. **Be brief and specific.** Roughly one page; no hype; let the agronomic significance speak.

## Skeleton

```
Dear Editors-in-Chief,

We submit "[Title]" for consideration as an [article type] in Field Crops Research.

[Scope + contribution: field-based study across N seasons and M environments on
<field crop>; the novel finding is ___, quantified as ___; it matters generally
because ___.]

The work is original and not under consideration elsewhere; all authors approve
submission. Data availability: [shared in <repository> / restricted because ___].
[We did/did not use generative-AI tools, disclosed in the manuscript.]

[Optional: suggested reviewers / conflicts.]

Sincerely, [Corresponding author, affiliation, contact]
```

## Scope-fit sentence bank (illustrative)

The editor's eye lands on one paragraph: does it clear the gate? Each row pairs a vague opener with one
that pre-clears the scope screen.

| Weak | Scope-clearing rewrite (illustrative) |
|------|---------------------------------------|
| "We studied nitrogen on wheat." | "Across 2 seasons and 5 environments, we quantify how N-use efficiency of wheat cultivars varies with N supply." |
| "This is the first such study in our area." | "We resolve a contested mechanism — whether deficit irrigation raises WUE — across a vapour-pressure-deficit gradient." |

## Worked cover-letter vignette (illustrative)

*Illustrative.* Draft 1 of a maize-MET letter paraphrases the abstract and never names the article type
or environment spread — a letter the editor cannot scope-check. The repaired opening names it an
**Original Research Paper**, states the work is **field-based across 2 seasons × 4 environments on
maize**, gives the headline result (**a 0.9 t ha⁻¹ environment-conditional advantage**), and confirms
originality, data availability, and AI disclosure — letting the editor tick every scope box at once.

## Anti-patterns

- A letter that summarises the abstract but never states **scope fit**
- Claiming novelty without the quantitative finding or its general relevance
- Hiding a single-site/single-season limitation instead of justifying it
- Overstating impact; emotional or boilerplate appeals
- Forgetting originality, data-availability, or AI-disclosure statements


## 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.
- **Stop condition:** do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's `resources/official-source-map.md` has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

## Output format

```
【Article type】named? [Y/N]
【Scope fit stated】field-based + ≥2 seasons/envs + field crop + general? [Y/N]
【Contribution】novel insight + headline quantitative result stated? [Y/N]
【Declarations】originality + data availability + AI disclosure? [Y/N]
【Length/tone】~1 page, specific, no hype? [Y/N]
【Next】fcr-review-process
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — scope boundary, article types, and submission expectations