000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c62234 _d62226
001			62234
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20200713221349.0
008			200124s2000 ne |||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0378-4290
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00105-2
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_910928 _aSinclair, T.R.
245	1	0	_aCriteria for publishing papers on crop modeling
260			_aAmsterdam (Netherlands) : _bElsevier, _c2000.
500			_aPeer review
520			_aManuscripts 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.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_2AGROVOC _92623 _aCrop modelling
650		7	_2AGROVOC _99559 _aHelianthus annuus
650		7	_2AGROVOC _91134 _aGenotypes
700	1		_914601 _aSeligman, N.
773	0		_dAmsterdam (Netherlands) : Elsevier, 2000. _gv. 68, no. 3, p. 165-172 _tField Crops Research _wu444314 _x0378-4290
942			_2ddc _cJA _n0