Ability to pre-define consistent inclusion/exclusion reasons for all reviewers in a project, to be set by review owner.

Most reviews will have a primary researcher that may review all title/abstract results, with collaborators doing a percentage for inclusion validity/reliability. It is likely there will be some conflict, and there needs to be a 'resolution' or 'override' function available to the primary researcher. These conflicting results still need to be resolved, but at the moment they are automatically excluded.

Allow results to be hidden after title/abstract stage so team can move to full-text without having to create a new project.

have multiple reveiw members on a project within 1 file, and each record reviewed by pair of reviewers only

keep all original bibliographic data!

When uploading references and subsequently downloading these references some information is lost. eg the following fields are empty after downloading from rayyan. DOI, name of database, database provider, keywords, date field. These field are at times necessary for further processing so would it be possible to leave the original reference intact when exporting back to reference software.

Great software that makes systematic review easy.

After hitting "I" or "E" to include or exclude a paper respectively, it would be good to have the selection move automatically onto the next paper.

In the mobile app, it would be useful to just show the title and allow to include/exclude articles instead of seeing the abstract.

Scroll option in the mobile app

Currently, 'Inclusion decisions' conatin the items 'Undecided', 'Included' and 'Excluded'.
From a systematic reviewer's point of view it would be great to have the additional item 'Potentially relevant' meaning publications which need to be checked as full text. This would differ these publications from 'Undecided' which should refer to 'Awaiting classification' or something similar.
Also, a 'First check exclusion' button would be great (both as a button and an additional item for 'Inclusion decisions') for abstracts which clearly do not address the research question and can be quickly eliminated.

Please add a feature to distinguish which reviewer provided which exclusion reason. This should also be stored in the export files like the decisions are stored for each reviewer.

One essential featire that is need for this app is to have the opportunity to remember our screening position (that is which article/record number) We let reviewed and start us from there. Every time I open the app, it takes me to the beginning of the articles to be sxreenes is 1/xxx and I have to scroll to number 100,200, etc from there. That is so so so inefficient. Please improve the app to enable us continue fro. Where we left off. As is, it makes things very tedious.

Good if you can develop a facility to upload PDF full-texts direct from the source like the way EndNote and Mendeley do, Or
Good if you can develop a facility to upload references from EndNote/Mendeley along with the PDF full-texts when it is available with the citation.

would like to have 1 file and several reviewers screening simultaneously only 2 records each, instead of have to split multiple files for pair of reviewers

Having an issue when connected to WiFi/network I get a message saying “New include/exclude decisions were created outside the app. The screen will now refresh to fetch these updates.” Once I hit “okay” my article list gets deleted and has to be re-downloaded. The only way I’ve found to prevent this is working offline while in the app. I’m on iPhone, iOS 11.1

Be able to edit/add abstracts to records if they didn't import.

PubMed records often include DOI field. Linking to the article via DOI resolver would speed up full text assessment where needed.

Flowsheet (PRISMA-like)

Ex: be able to see all articles that don't contain the words "surgery", "surgeries", "surgeon", "surgeons", "surgical", etc.

It would be very helpful in excluding some articles.

A feature to download a backup file of the running review to local computer, which contain all the decisions made till now and restore it if any thing goes wrong with the main online file. This will give extra piece of mind when reviewing a big list of documents (eg. more than a 1000 articles)

Ability to pre-set number of reviews per abstract with the blind-on for multi-reviewer teams.