What are the best tips for developing a framework to write a (systematic) review paper? Perhaps, this is a meta-level question. Most review papers narrate the story of the field/problem or summarize a large but focused body of literature. The authors are usually senior level faculties with years of experience in the field. How these papers are being reviewed and what is the formalism behind accepting or rejecting them? Many such papers fail to present a framework/criteria/dimension for the field (maybe due to complexity), but is there any effort targeted to develop reviewing skills for young researchers to follow?
I too find it frustrating that so many literature reviews are so unsystematic.

There are efforts underway to improve the quality of reviews, and to develop these skills in early-career researchers. We like our students, where possible, to write a review article as a early part of their PhD. The medical field has for many years been honing the quality of reviews, and there's much that other fields can learn from it.

We have had a Q&amp;A about systematic reviews earlier, and there I listed three relevant books. The most significant of these, as far as your question is concerned, is Doing a Systematic Review: A Student's Guide - Angela Boland et al - it's primarily aimed at Masters students, and also makes for an easy-to-read introduction to the field for anyone.