Peer review

Manuscripts describing crop models are a common feature in crop science journals. Many of these papers offer important conceptual insights and advances in the understanding of crop science but some fail to offer the scientific innovation expected in a scientific publication. Even though manuscripts may describe modeling efforts of practical perspective with localized interest, they may not present an analysis of general, scientific interest. A difficult challenge for journal referees and editors is to make decisions on submitted manuscripts concerning their acceptability for journal publication. The discussion presented in this paper is intended to initiate a consideration of those traits expected of a manuscript describing a crop model. We suggest three criteria that should be met in a crop modeling paper to make it suitable for scientific publication: a clear statement of a scientific objective with a defined domain of relevance, a mechanistic framework, and an evaluation of the scientific innovation offered in the new model. We also discuss the use and abuse of three widely used modeling concepts: calibration, validation, and universality.

Text in English