Fcr Writing Style

---
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**, 待核实 exact cap): 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.

## 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

## 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