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. Any reviewer can edit the team settings.
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 conflict resolution votes if they are required.
More information on the rules that apply to counting each reviewer's contribution can be found here.
You can control who performs what in Title and Abstract Screening, Full Text Review and Extraction 1.
Title and Abstract Screening and Full Text Review
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 screen all studies. In the example below, Julie or Ghida must screen each study. The second vote, assuming two reviewers are required, could come from anyone on the author team, regardless of how many people are listed in this rule.
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.
If you are using Extraction 1, the screenshot below shows the three ways you can configure Extraction rules.
The All studies must be extracted by option lets you define who must extract data from studies. You could use this functionality to ensure that an experienced reviewer will be the 1st Reviewer who extracts data from a study. In the example below, Laura or Julie must extract data for each study. The second extractor, assuming dual extraction is required, could come from anyone on the author team, regardless of how many people are listed in this rule.
The Consensus can be resolved by option lets you control who can complete consensus during data extraction. Along with this rule, a consensus reviewer also needs to be either the 1st Reviewer or the 2nd Reviewer for a study.
The Templates can be edited by option lets you control who can edit the data extraction and quality assessment templates in Extraction 1. If a reviewer can’t edit templates, then they will not see the buttons for “Data extraction template” and “Quality assessment template” in Extraction 1.
You’ve got the same team progress but at the moment there are no options for rules.