Currently if I am in the "unresolved duplicates" category and delete duplicates, they get added to the "deleted" folder but they stay under the "unresolved" category unless I refresh it. Similarly, when I am in the "undecided" category and I include or exclude an article, it stays in the undecided category until I go into the category again. It would be good if these were automatically moved out of these lists after applying these actions, as it gets confusing & is annoying to have to manually refresh every single time.

Ability to allocate certain ranges of items to each reviewer at the start of the review process

Would be really useful if, when the option 'unsure' was checked, if it would display this decision similarly to the 'include' and 'exclude' then it would be clear to other reviewers that there is uncertainty over this reference rather than there being no decision shown which leads to uncertainty over whether this has been examined or not.

We like RAYYAN very much. And have started to use it to screen full-text papers.
The notes field holds all the decision to include or exclude. And we use notes to store reasons for inclusion and exclusion.
Please could you arrange to export this information in separate columns in CSV? So that I can successfully import to to excel/ access?

Ability to set number of reviewers per article.

Using keywords or labels to exclude (rather than include) abstracts when filtering

Announcements when Rayyan is down or not functioning properly

Add the ability to filter by year to your mobile app.

Ability to rename, delete, and merge labels and exclusion reasons. Badly needed!

Allow multiple tags to be selected before the dropdown menu closes

Make it easier to remove or change reasons and labels.

Being able to use AND when two or more labels are selected. Eg a reference must have both selected labels to be displayed. Currently all references that have either of these labels are displayed.

Add an indicator next to folders on left (e.g. keywords, duplicates etc) which shows percentage of papers resolved in that folder. This may also be achieved with a colour coded strip indicating red for incomplete and green for complete. This would then enable a reviewer to move on to other folders without going back and forth into folders already resolved.

Re-order exclusion reasons. This could be either manual, or dynamically by frequency or recency

be able to filter based on whether it was judged by only one individual or both.

Like the Tinder dating app. Each study would then be loaded individually on screen and upon swiping, the next article would present itself. Swiping up or down could mean previous or next, respectively without making a decision.

So for example to be able to download only undecided articles. This would be especially great for large databases of studies.

have a random number generator or a random citation generator from within a review - is second review only reviewing a proportion of citations would allow this to be truly random

Thanks

It would be quicker to scan through abstracts if you highlight key parts of the abstract like "aims" or "results"...etc.