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

Make it possible to enter a layered review structure.
Often researchers start with screening articles on title. The articles selected on title will be screened on abstract. And thereafter on full article.
Now I have to make serveral reviews for 1 article

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

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.

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.

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.

Better export to csv for easier analysis. As it is right now, filtering is difficult because labels get lumped in with exclusion decisions, and there's lots of cleanup in excel. Just pipe those to different columns and we'd be golden.

Scroll option in the mobile app

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.

Ability to display and import/export a local record number, like an EndNote or Reference Manager reference ID

Allow to identify a reference as duplicate when not picked up by Rayyan

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.

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

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)

Improving the phone app so it does not have to download content after only a short amount of use would be useful. Or at least still being able to filter when this happens. Or maybe being able to sort in different ways.

Apologies if this function exists already but I have not found out how to do on the phone app

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.

Load full list of titles and make it scrollable, do not refresh the list, this is quite annoying and causes me to loose track of the title list.

Flowsheet (PRISMA-like)

Feature suggestion: It would be handy to be able to edit the reasons I've already given. In this case, I've noticed that one reason is used very commonly, so I'd like to move this one to the top of the list by changing it's name so it begins with a 1. There might be other reasons to edit a reason, though.