The art of writing a good, meaningful and well-appreciated review paper for respective audiences is not an easy task to undertake. Often review papers have no hypothesis and are just a rehash of references, data, figures and tables with little inference to what future scientific directions need to be undertaken. On the other hand, some review manuscripts lack figures and tables and make reading cumbersome. There is a plethora of review styles in science, engineering technology, social sciences, business, etc. which can differ depending on the subject matter and journal expectations. This paper is a modest effort to outline guidelines to enhance the review contributions to the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, (JENVR) while achieving a high standard of submission.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sheldon Landsberger (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: