Reporting & Data Policy (fcr-reporting-and-data-policy)

FCR does not just want results — it wants the agronomic context that makes them interpretable and reproducible, plus a statement of data availability at submission. Build these as you go so they do not stall the submission.

When to trigger

• Assembling the methods section for completeness before submission
• Writing the data-availability statement required at submission
• Deciding whether to co-submit a dataset/method to Data in Brief / MethodsX
• Disclosing any use of generative AI in preparing the manuscript

Reporting completeness (FCR-specific)

A field-crop paper is reproducible only if the methods report all of:

• Crop & cultivar(s) and, where relevant, maturity group / genotype identity
• Site(s) & seasons with coordinates; the environments and what they represent
• Soil properties (type, texture, relevant chemistry) for each site
• Weather (radiation, temperature, rainfall) shown in relation to crop phenology
• Management: sowing date/density, fertilisation, irrigation, crop protection, tillage
• Experimental design: layout, randomization, replication, plot size, guard rows
• Statistics: model, error structure, software/version (see fcr-data-analysis)
• Yield data (encouraged) and the biophysical processes linked to it

Data availability (state it at submission)

1. Declare availability. FCR/Elsevier requires authors to state the availability of any data at submission; the statement is published with the article on ScienceDirect.
2. Share where possible. Deposit data in a recognised repository (e.g., Mendeley Data, or a domain repository) and cite it with a persistent identifier; FCR datasets are hosted openly under Creative Commons terms on Mendeley Data.
3. If data cannot be shared. State the reason (e.g., sensitive, confidential, or provider-restricted) in the data-availability statement during submission.
4. Co-submission. Standalone datasets or methods can be forwarded to Data in Brief / MethodsX alongside the article.

Other declarations

• Generative AI. Declare any use of generative-AI tools in the manuscript-preparation process at submission, per Elsevier policy.
• Ethics / authorship / conflicts. Standard Elsevier declarations (CRediT roles, competing interests, funding) where applicable.

Minimum agronomic metadata table (what an FCR methods reviewer audits)

A methods reviewer for a field-crop journal reads for reproducibility line by line. The gaps that draw "cannot evaluate" comments are predictable; carry this table so each item is on the page, not in a lab notebook.

Block	Must report	Why FCR cares
Genotype	cultivar name, maturity group, seed source/year	G×E claims need genotype identity
Environment	site coordinates, elevation, seasons, what each environment represents	defines the target population of environments
Soil	classification, texture, depth, pH, organic C, available N/P/K	yield response is soil-conditional
Weather	radiation, max/min temperature, rainfall, aligned to phenology	lets readers interpret G×E
Management	sowing date/density, N/P/K rate and timing, irrigation, crop protection, tillage	the "M" in G×E×M
Design	layout, randomization, replication, plot size, guard rows	error structure depends on it

Worked data-availability vignette (illustrative)

Illustrative; figures are for demonstration only. A multi-environment trial of two wheat cultivars across 3 seasons × 5 sites (15 site-years) reports grain yields of 4.2–7.8 t ha⁻¹ and a per-plot dataset of N rate, anthesis date, and yield. Drafting the statement: the plot-level table (15 site-years × 4 N rates × 3 reps ≈ 180 rows) is non-sensitive, so deposit it in Mendeley Data under Creative Commons, cite it with the DOI, and state "data are openly available at [DOI]." One site's soil-survey layer is licensed from a provider that forbids redistribution — for that layer only, state the restriction and its reason rather than leaving a blanket "available on request." The published statement must let a reader regenerate every yield mean and SED in the results. Check the repository and statement wording against the journal's author guidelines during the final upload-week pass.

Anti-patterns

• A methods section missing soil, weather-vs-phenology, or management detail (not reproducible)
• Leaving the data-availability statement blank or to the last minute
• "Data available on request" with no reason and no repository where sharing was feasible
• Forgetting the generative-AI declaration
• Reported yields that the deposited data or analysis cannot regenerate
• Depositing summary means only, so the plot-level structure (blocks, sub-plots) cannot be reconstructed

Output format

【Reporting complete?】cultivar + site/season + soil + weather-vs-phenology + management + design + stats? [Y/N]
【Yield data linked to process?】[Y/N]
【Data-availability statement】shared (repo + ID) / restricted (reason) — drafted? [Y/N]
【Co-submission】Data in Brief / MethodsX relevant? [Y/N/NA]
【Generative-AI declaration】[Y/N/NA]
【Next】fcr-writing-style

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — data repositories and reproducibility tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — data-availability, AI-disclosure, and reporting policy