The phrase "accessible for review" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when indicating that something is available for examination or evaluation, often in a formal or professional context.
Example: "The report is now accessible for review by all team members before the final submission."
Alternatives: "available for assessment" or "open for evaluation".
"Accordingly," he added, "the agency's action in making records accessible for review at its respective offices during its regular business hours satisfies its obligations under the law".
By presenting the topic guide and clearly indicating where existing theories and knowledge have informed the analysis we hope to render these influences transparent and thus accessible for review by the reader.
Juvenile females were the least commonly discharged sampling category, and due to the small available sample size, the sample of juvenile females was supplemented with eligible individuals whose records were not available on the TRIM database but were accessible for review at the juvenile remand centre on 9th June 2008.
Three principles will be followed to make the data collection process accessible and transparent for review.
Given the potential for a vast and overwhelming presentation, and a concern with making this review accessible for non-academic audiences, our review is necessarily selective and only sufficient literature to support the points made is cited.
If the necessary resources become available, CIET hopes to develop and expand the balance sheet into a web-based tool accessible for critical peer review and eventual public use.
As CEACAM1, CEA, and CEACAM6 are exposed on the apical membrane of mucosal cells, they provide an accessible handle for incoming bacteria (for review see [ 2]).
Daily update of the activity summary is accessible to the pre-specified/qualified end users for review and investigation of possible safety adverse events.
For example, a locally known and respected public health consultant presented clear, simple rapid evidence reviews in line with guidance on making systematic reviews more accessible for commissioners [ 22, 23], but with apparently limited impact.
(See Hinton 1992 for an accessible review).
Indeed, these topics are the source of controversy in the philosophy of science, where an enormous literature explores different ways of understanding the structure and confirmation of theories (see Godfrey-Smith 2003, for an accessible review).
