I am looking for an independent second reviewer for the study-selection stage of a scoping review on psychological interventions that support people through major life transitions - for example leaving education, changing career, retirement, migration, gender transition, the onset of illness, and bereavement.

What the task involves

• Stage 1: independent title and abstract screening of approximately 105 records in Covidence. Roughly 2-3 hours.
• Stage 2: independent full-text screening of the records that pass Stage 1, expected to be around 30-40. Roughly 4-6 hours.
• Resolving conflicts with me by discussion. I calculate percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa and report both in the manuscript.

What I provide

• A two-page written criteria brief: the operational definitions, numbered inclusion and exclusion rules you can cite directly in your reasons, worked examples of the hardest exclusions from the previous round, and the known false-positive traps in this search. (The search used identit*, so there is a steady stream of identity-theft and brand-identity records to discard.)
• A Covidence reviewer account, set up by me.
• Answers to any question about the criteria before you begin. I would far rather resolve an ambiguity upfront than have it resolved silently during screening.

What I am looking for

Careful and consistent application of a fixed set of criteria - not subject expertise. The criteria are fully written out, and any psychology, social science, health or allied background is plenty. Concretely, I need a one-line reason on every exclusion naming the rule it fails, and genuinely ambiguous records flagged as Maybe with a short note rather than guessed. There is no penalty for using Maybe; I would much rather have three honest Maybes than three confident coin-flips.

The work is fully remote, with no fixed meeting times, and can be done in your own time within the deadline. I am in Australia but timezone is not a constraint for this task.

Recognition

I am offering acknowledgement in the published paper. I can also pay a modest fee for the screening if you would prefer that to an unpaid contribution - I am happy to discuss what is reasonable, and no one should feel they have to do this for free. If you are interested in a fuller role on the review rather than screening alone, that is also worth a conversation.

Please include in your application

1. Which review your last independent dual screening was for - the topic, roughly how many records, and what the agreement or kappa came out at.
2. Whether you have used Covidence, or another screening platform.
3. Your availability over the next month.

Remote, anywhere - no location requirement and no fixed meeting times. The screening can be chipped away at in your own time within the deadline. Expect 2-3 hours for Stage 1 and 4-6 hours for Stage 2. No subject-matter expertise needed: the inclusion and exclusion criteria are fully operationalised in a written brief I provide. A background in psychology, social science, health or an allied discipline is plenty, and postgraduate students are very welcome. What I do need is prior experience of independent dual screening - ideally on a review where percentage agreement or Cohen's kappa was reported - and the patience to read closely and consistently across a long list of records. Attention needs to hold at record 90 as well as record 5. Covidence experience is helpful but I can set you up and orient you. In your application, please say which review your last dual screening was for (topic, approximate number of records, and the agreement or kappa achieved), whether you have used Covidence, and your availability over the next month.