The team settings page provides you with a deeper insight into how your team has been progressing.  You can also configure each of the title & abstract and full-text review stages to give you more control of who can do what in your review.

Contributions

The example below illustrates the overall progress of the team in the title and abstract stage as well as showing the relative contributions of each team member. You can see that Warren has screened 42 studies, Rob has screened 25 and Matt has screened 10. The numbers will reflect the initial screen and include any consensus votes if they are required. 

More information on the rules that apply to counting each reviewer's contribution can be found here

 

Rules

 You can control who performs what in title/abstract and full-text review screening.

   

Screening

The screenshot below shows the two ways that a review stage can be configured.  

The All studies must be screened by option lets you define who must screen each study in the stage. You could use this functionality to ensure that an experienced reviewer(s) will at the very least screen all studies. In the example below, Julie or Ghida must screen each study. The other vote, assuming two reviewers are required, could come from anyone on the author team, including Ghida and Julie.

The Conflicts can be resolved by option lets you control who can resolve conflicts during the screening process.  Any reviewer who is a member of this group will have the permission to resolve conflicts.  If no one is assigned to the group then everyone will be able to resolve conflicts.

Extraction

You’ve got the same team progress but at the moment there are no options for rules.