Get your Environmental Impact Assessment Review paper right the first time: a ready-made structure with the right abstract and citations, so editors see your science, not formatting slips.
4.5
Authored by Sumalatha Gangadhar | Published on 11 August, 2026
Submitting to Environmental Impact Assessment Review goes smoothly when your draft already matches the journal's own rules. Editors screen new manuscripts against the Environmental Impact Assessment Review guide for authors before peer review, so formatting, structure, and required statements should be right on the first draft rather than repaired during upload. This template sets that structure up for you.
It is a manuscript shell aligned to Environmental Impact Assessment Review. It covers front matter, the abstract the journal expects, a body organized to the journal's article types, and a reference list in the journal's required style. Confirm current scope and article types on the Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal page before you draft.
Prepare the title, authors, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Write the abstract to the journal's rule and word limit, organize the body to the article type, and apply the required reference style from the first citation. Complete every declaration (ethics, competing interests, funding, data availability) the Environmental Impact Assessment Review guide for authors lists, and cite figures and tables in order.
The common failure modes are formatting or reference style that does not match the guide for authors, missing required statements, and an incomplete portal checklist. Clear all three against the Environmental Impact Assessment Review guide for authors before you submit.
The shell mirrors what editorial staff check first: article-type fit, the abstract rules, required declarations, and the journal's reference style. For more detail see the author resources. When your draft is ready, upload it through the journal's submission system.
| Element | Environ Impact Assess Rev requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Concise and factual abstract not exceeding 250 words. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of your research, principal results and major conclusions. Abstracts must be able to stand alone as abstracts are often presented separately from the article. Avoid references (if essential, cite author(s) and year(s)). Avoid non-standard or uncommon abbreviations (if essential, define within abstract at first mention). No differentiation by article type stated |
| Main text | Articles and reviews of current literature: normally expected to be 5,000-8,000 words in length (including tables, figures and reference lists). Word counts are not strictly imposed, but editors reserve the right to return articles for shortening which are considered to be overly long. Viewpoints: typically shorter submissions (2,000-4,000 words in length) that are contextually placed, and deliver broader understanding based on experience |
| Declarations | Ethics approval/consent as applicable; competing interests; funding; data availability |
| Figures/tables | Publication-ready; cited in order |
| Supplemental | Upload separately when used |
| Keywords | 1 to 7 keywords required for indexing purposes. Keywords should be written in English. Avoid keywords consisting of multiple words (using 'and' or 'of'). Recommended to only use abbreviations if they are firmly established in the field |
| References | Author-date style (Harvard). Single author: author's name (without initials, unless ambiguity) and year. Two authors: both authors' names and year. Three or more authors: first author's name followed by 'et al.' and year. Citations can be made directly or parenthetically. Groups of references listed either first alphabetically then chronologically, or vice versa. Examples: '(Allan, 2020a, 2020b; Allan and Jones, 2019)' or '(Jones, 2019; Allan, 2020)' or 'Kramer et al. (2023) have recently shown'. Reference list arranged alphabetically and then chronologically if necessary |
| Peer review | Double-blind / double anonymized review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers and vice versa. Submission initially assessed by editors for suitability, then typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for independent expert assessment |
| Submission | submit.elsevier.com/EIR |
Read the Environmental Impact Assessment Review guide for authors once before drafting and once before upload. Draft the abstract after results are stable. Set the reference style before adding citations. Keep a cover letter that states your contribution and fit to Environmental Impact Assessment Review in under a page.
Skim two or three recent Environ Impact Assess Rev papers to calibrate depth and figure style. Make the novelty clear in the first two pages. Deposit data and code when the policy on the Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal page requires it. Disclose any preprint or conference version with identifiers in the cover letter.
Do one focused pass against the Environmental Impact Assessment Review guide for authors: scope, length, reference style, required declarations, and figure quality. Then submit through the journal's submission system.