We have learned that when an e-resource is removed from a portfolio, if that title happens to be attached to a Reading List, you get an empty holdings information in Leganto. But the title itself remains. The only way we found out about this is by comparing our Production instance with our Sandbox. The Sandbox had the old portfolio, and though the database itself is available, this individual title apparently was removed. Ideally, these titles in a reading list should 1) be hidden from student view; and 2) somehow marked or identified as having an issue (in this case, the item is no longer available electronically)

The Recent Changes tab in Alma contains useful information but poorly-structured sentences that are hard to read or understand at a glance. In order to make it clearer what has happened and where, each entry could be displayed in a table with the following columns:

date, type of change, new entity (instructor for "Collaborator added", file name for "a new file was added to the citation" etc), old entity (previous: note, file name, placement of citation, etc.), citation title, section title, reading list title, link, user (who made the change).

We also suggest

• using the word "citation" instead of "item"

• link directly to the citation, section, or list the change was applied to

• to log the activity 5 minutes after the last change, so that small adjustments to the same citation are not logged one after another.

• that also smaller changes are logged (e.g., hide links, change content, move references, etc).

We would like to be able to report on a citation's associated portfolios in Alma analytics.

As libraries focus more on the value of our resources, we are receiving more requests to see if collections are being used on reading lists. Currently the only way you can get this information is to run a report separately to get a list of MMS IDs/ISNs for a portfolio or electronic collection and then report on ISNs etc against citation metadata.

This makes the process more complicated and also means there can be gaps (e.g. citation isn't linked to a record but is showing a link via Open URL).

Clarifying any connections between electronic collection portfolios and citations would greatly enhance reporting on material and management of reading list resources.

Further to 2023 enhancements around marking courses as not expecting a list and showing a message where this has been done, there is still currently no way for Instructors themselves to mark their own course as "No list expected". This means that instructors have to contact the Library to do this on their behalf.

We would like the "No list expected" box to be added to the LTI list creation screen (screen that appears when creating a list via LTI in a LMS/CMS/VLE, e.g. BlackBoard, Canvas or Moodle) so that instructors can tick it for themselves. Adding it in the landing page aligns with the other list creation options and is a screen instructors will be familiar with.

(revised version of 9074 from 2024 process)

Currently when staff want to set all citations in a reading to complete, they have to go into Alma, then Click on select all and then change status to complete. However, this will only change the citations on the page, not all citations for the whole reading list. This option is available in Leganto (as there is only one page of citations no matter the number) but not in Alma Course Reserves

We would like the option to complete all citations for the entire list in Alma Course Reserves, not just the citations on each page separately.

With the introduction of the library view, library staff also need quick and easy access to the instructor view: to demonstrate/train instructors; to produce training materials for instructors; to test new configuration changes.We really like the easy toggle transition between student/staff views and would like to see something similar between library/instructor views.

When copying citations from one reading list to another, Leganto allows users to copy only to the lists saved in the "My Lists" section. This functionality works well for instructors, but librarians preparing lists on behalf of faculty need to save all the necessary lists in the "My Lists" section beforehand. Librarians should have the ability to copy citations to any available list. Enabling this feature would streamline the setup of reading lists at the beginning of the academic year, when citations need to be copied from one year to the next, especially in institutions where citation management is a shared responsibility between instructors and the library.

Here you can find also the Idea Exchange for this request: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/49377077-copying-citations-between-reading-lists

Situation - Like many institutions we catalogue using MARC rules. Therefore, we catalogue physical and electronic records separately. This means we generally only attach a physical bibliographic record to a citation in Leganto. Then we add the electronics links to the citation link field. This means that only the physical item is connected to the Leganto citation. So when we are reporting on how many electronic records are being used in Leganto records lists we cannot get the accurate statistics we need. Furthermore, when users search for records in Primo, they will not see that a electronic record is attached to a course - they will only see that the physical version is attached. if they use the Primo course facet the electronic records will be hidden. This may make them think that the electronic record is not useful.

Solution - we would like the ability to attach more than one bibliographic record to a citation in leganto. In order that this information is then shown in Primo and analytics.

Idea Exchange link: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/43840230-multiple-assignees-per-list

Describe the functionality being requested:

We would like to be able to have more than one library staff member assigned to the same Leganto Reading List, so that in one staff member’s absence another staff member can see what needs to be worked on in the Alma Task Lists for Reading Lists and Citations.

There are multiple scenarios across different types and sizes of institutions where it makes sense to allow multiple assignees for a single reading list. Some scenarios where this change makes sense:

• A small staff pool consisting of part time employees

• Reading lists that serve multiple campuses/geographic locations

• Reading lists that contain a mixture of subject materials that different faculties are responsible for

• Particularly long reading lists where collaboration of multiple library staff members is needed

In our institution, most reading lists usually have more than one staff member working on them, especially as our institution is now rolling out more national courses that span campuses/states. If more than one staff member could be assigned to a reading list, we would be able to rely on the Tasks widget for reading list-related tasks (currently we cannot, because only the ‘assigned’ staff member sees the alerts in the widget).

If this request proceeded, we would be able to discard our clunky workarounds (such as relying on Analytics reports/widgets in order to do basic daily tasks that ideally would be able to be done straight from the Tasks widget).

Technical Requirements:

Alma functionality would need to allow for more than one Assignee to be attached to a Reading List, so that related Reading Lists and Citation alerts show up for all list assignees in the Task widget.

The ‘List assigned to’ facet on the Fulfillment > Citations page should calculate correctly to ensure the user can still use the facet to see citations on lists assigned to them. Perhaps a new facet could be included that is “assigned to me & others”, or at the very least any citations assigned to multiple users would need to show up if one of those users is “me”.

It would be helpful if the user who reported a broken citation link was included in the Leganto Link Marked As Broken Letter XML. That way, the user data would be include in the email staff receive. It would save time and effort, compared to looking this information up in the Alma alert.

This enhancement request was also added by another customer to idea exchange: Leganto Link Marked As Broken Letter - include reporting user metadata – Have an idea for Ex Libris?

Idea Exchange link: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/43985955-merge-reading-lists-in-leganto

Describe the functionality being requested:

We would like the option to merge Reading Lists where a duplicate list has been accidentally created, or a course has two different Reading Lists attached to it but should not. The ability to merge Reading Lists should be opt-in, so that institutions can choose whether to allow their library staff to merge lists or not. This ability could be granted via a Leganto user role or role privilege, or via a parameter in configuration.

Currently there is a lot of manual work required to resolve problems caused by duplication of lists, so having the ability to merge lists would be a big help.

Use Case

A reading list has been rolled over to the new semester’s version of the course on Fremantle Campus, but the course is being taught by an instructor on Sydney Campus this year. The Sydney version of the course does not have the reading list attached, and the instructor creates a new list via the Learning Management System when trying to access the old list. Work is done on the new list and then the duplication is discovered.

The library staff member who’s asked to assist can simply merge the two lists, rather than having to manually re-create citations (and their notes, labels, etc.) in the preferred reading list and then remove the non-preferred list.

Technical Requirements:

Allow staff to choose a surviving list, and a ‘dying’ list that will be merged into the surviving list – the same as how patron records are merged.

Include the option to keep all citations from both lists, or keep only unique citations from the dying list. After the merge, library staff or instructors can go through the surviving list and remove any unnecessary citations.

The newly migrated citations from the ‘dying’ list would have an update date of the date that the merge occurred, so they are easy to identify for library staff. Only allow reading lists to be merged if they are both affiliated to the same course.

We use the related records parameter in the Leganto discover settings (“related_records” set to True) to ensure that citations display both print and electronic, availability as we catalogue these separately in Alma. Although this works well in Leganto, when Library staff are working on citations in Alma they are only able to see availability information for the original bib record added to the list. To view the full availability information including the related record, they either need to change to working in Leganto or they have to drill down in Alma to view any related records (eg. citation in the reading list in Alma only appears to have a Physical holding. “Manage Fulfilment Options” then shows that there are Electronic Services. Both P and E show when viewing in Leganto). It would make it easier for staff to review citations, make purchasing decisions etc. if they were able to view the full availability information in the citation display in Alma. An alternative solution would be to make a related records link visible in the citation view, perhaps as a tab, similar to the "Demand in other lists" link so staff are instantly aware that a related record exists and can quickly view details and availability in one click.

Some functional and layout aspects need to be improved in the Leganto Mobile Experience. Please see the attachment for more detailed information.

1. Leganto mobile hasn't any top header; the app is completely anonymous (neither the institution logo nor the name of the product is visible)

2. The layout of the general menu is different from the one presented in May 2024, and it has a lot of line spacing. "Upcoming due dates” are always visible also for institutions that disabled this feature.

3. The names of the reading lists are truncated if they are quite long. We’d expect complete list names to be shown, spanning multiple rows if needed

This enhancement is submitted by the ITALE Leganto Working Group.

Here you can find also the Idea Exchange for this request: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/49369964-leganto-mobile-experience-improvement

Currently the links are displayed according to what the Alma u-resolver returns back, and the results (links) are dependent on the collection activation in Alma. We need the option to sort links (Ascending/Descending) in Leganto view, regardless of the Alma / Primo sort. For some resources it make sense that the newest will be first, like journal issues, but in other materials such as a TV series it should be first chapter first. That is why the flexibility in configuration important here.It will be highly beneficial if the sort order will be configurable for each citation with multiple links.

We’ve been using the “managing visibility dates for citation and materials” function with the Leganto Classic UI to control the visibility of individual citations or materials depending on the date :

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Leganto/Product_Documentation/Leganto_Online_Help_(English)/Leganto_User_Interface_Guide/50_Working_With_Citations#Managing_Visibility_Dates_for_Citation_and.2For_Materials

After moving to Leganto New UI this function was no longer available. We opened a support ticket (#07854111) and got the response that this function was removed possibly due to low usage and suggested to use the “hide button” under "items actions" as an alternative. We tested and found that the alternative did not meet our needs of specifying a date range for the citation or materials to be visible.

This enhancement request is for adding back this missing feature to the Leganto New UI.

Related idea exchange entry : https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/47447999-scheduling-the-dates-of-visibility-of-citations-at

When viewing a citation in Leganto that is awaiting copyright approval, the status is not visible in the list or brief view. Users must open the full details and navigate to the item actions tab to see this information. Additionally, if a citation is incomplete, it shows as ‘Library is processing,’ which only reflects the citation status, not the copyright status.

Please add a visible indicator in the list and brief view of citations to show the ‘Copyright is waiting for approval’ status: https://app.screencast.com/9gzFtVDxEijtk The status should also be available as a filter in the list.

This enhancement would make it easier for librarians and instructors to identify the status of citations at a glance. By displaying ‘Copyright is waiting for approval’ in the list or brief view, it improves transparency and reduces the need to navigate through multiple tabs. This not only saves time but also enhances the overall user experience, ensuring that librarians and instructors can quickly understand why a file might not be visible to students.

Describe the functionality being requested:

We would like to be able to update an existing citation in a Reading List if there is a newer edition, or a preferred edition.

Two suggestions for how citations could be updated:

• Select an existing citation, then run a library search, locating the new desired citation, and clicking on it – then get prompted about whether we want to replace the selected citation with the one from library search

• Editing an existing citation, replacing the ISBN or DOI, and saving the citation, which would result in the citation contents being overlaid/refreshed through a ‘resource locate’

We would need any custom content such as notes to students and labels to be retained (not overwritten/wiped out) and ideally these custom elements would be highlighted briefly after the update (as certain fields are highlighted in the Rialto interface after a cart template is applied to an offer), so that library staff could easily identify the fields they need to review post-update.

The updated citation should retain its place in the reading list, e.g. if it’s the third citation down in the second section, the new version of the citation should stay in that position.

Technical Requirements:

The citation should keep its position in the reading list. Customised fields like notes to students and labels should be temporarily highlighted to make it easier for staff to identify areas they need to review after a citation replacement, similarly to how fields in Rialto get highlighted after a Cart Template has been applied to an offer.

In the Leganto UI, the option "request digitization" is sometimes displayed although digitization is actually not possible. There are two different cases:he item belongs to a library without digitization department.If an item belongs to a library without digitization department, the option "request digitization" is still available in the associated citation in Leganto. If an instructor tries to send a digitization request for such an item, an error message is displayed.The item has an item policy that does not allow digitization.If an item associated with a citation in Leganto has a "no copy" item policy, the option "Request digitization" is still available. If an instructor sends a digitization request for such an item, the request is actually sent to Alma and has to be declined by the library.It would be a very user-friendly improvement if the option "request digitization" would not be available in a citation if one of the cases above applies. Additionally, this would be a considerable step towards a desired harmonization of the two products Leganto and GetIt in Primo in terms of their behavior in alike situations.

At our institution, the instructors have difficulties figuring out how to make a purchase request. We use Leganto questions to make it easier for them, but this works only for some of the ways you can add items in Leganto. Our users assume that the purchase request is in the same location as the digitization request, i.e. under “Library Services” in the “Item actions” tab and as prominent link when the brief view of a citation is open (see print screen), but without instructions it does not occur to them that they have to set a tag for the purchase request.

We think that it would improve the usability of the Leganto UI if purchase requests could be made at the same location and in a similar way as digitization requests. It could be implemented in such a way that after clicking on “Purchase Request” a small form would open in which the users could specify some essential information (e.g. electronic or physical copy) and could add an optional note. The information could be linked to corresponding tags (like in the Leganto questions) so that the current workflow could be continued after this.

When adding a direct link in the source URL field of a citation for an ebook chapter or a journal article in Leganto, provide a way to include the Access Model and license information of the relevant electronic collection or portfolio. See the following example screenshot of a book chapter citation: https://app.screencast.com/GZ19KdSJjkF2U

Displaying the access model and license information is critical for staff and students to understand access or usage restrictions on resources. This feature would be useful for citations with direct links to book chapters, as there is currently no easy way to indicate this other than by a public note which would be challenging to maintain or keep accurate. Some citations are connected to multiple portfolios and therefore having the relevant portfolio's access model or license display in the direct link details would reduce confusion for users.

After a reading list is published, subsequent additions to a list are handled by the setting list_new_citation_in_completed_list, which is defined as:

• The status to apply to a reading list that is currently set to Complete when a new citation is added to the list.

For many libraries, this must be set to ReadyForProcessing or BeingProcessed, to allow for processing of physical item requests. But those statuses do not make sense if the added citations are electronic and are auto-completed. In that scenario, library staff have to open the list and change the list status back to Complete, even though all citations are Complete and there is nothing to be processed.

Regardless of the value defined in list_new_citation_in_completed_list, the list status should remain at Complete when all citations being added are auto-completed. Staff intervention should not be necessary.

It would be very useful if citations for books would alert students to alternative editions and formats (related records) in our collections, the same way they do for staff in the 'Other versions' section of the 'Related items' tab.

Unless a specific chapter has been noted to study that does not appear in previous editions, it's possible older editions are also fine, but a student would not know this was an option from the reading list, which is meant to be their one-stop shop for finding library access to their resources.

In Leganto, a faculty member can request digitization of an item, using "Ask the library for a digital copy."

As part of this process, we want to be able to present instructors with information about the applicable copyright rules for what they are requesting, and ask them to check a box or otherwise certify that they have read and agree to the guidelines for the digitization.

This could be implemented with similar functionality to instructor questions/answers, though some institutions like ours want to display lengthier text to faculty and then ask them to describe how materials are / might be used, so it can be more complex than a yes/no workflow.

Possible implementation could include:

Adding copyright questions / information under the digitization request note;

Giving the option to set responses as required or optional;

Responses would be most preferred to be stored on the citation, as that would allow course reserves staff to most efficiently review information when working on courses, and could then be more easily included in the Course Reserves area of Analytics for reporting purposes.

There is a great need for *true* sub-sections in Leganto. Often a tutor will have a reading list for a term with weekly sections and themes or groups within each week. Although Leganto can denote these sections visually with indentation, it is impossible then to link from a VLE to a single section containing these sub-sections of themes. Ability to have sections with true sub-sections is the top request of our instructors.

Many libraries review reading lists once instructors have added items, but not many instructors know what the review process involves. Equally, not every instructor reads instructions/best practice guidelines, so they may have added items that library staff need to query.

We would like the option to add a pop-up message after a list is published or sent for review so that we can add information about what happens next, and highlight important instructions (e.g. "please tag key reading"). This context-sensitive information would help to improve communication between the library and instructors and bring greater transparency to the process to improve trust in the service.

The text in the pop-up should be configurable and HTML tag enabled, and the pop-up should be manually dismissed by the user (i.e. not a timed toast message).

It would be useful if instructors could enable their students as a form of collaborator on specific reading lists (this might be a new role: Student Collaborator) which might be very restricted or perhaps time-limited. We have a lecturer here who is very keen to involve students in the compilation of her reading lists. From the library perspective we can also see plenty of potential learning activities, which would be made possible if students could create or collaborate on lists, both associated to a specific course or not associated to a course but for their own research. Selection and evaluation of information resources is a key skill which our students need to develop and Leganto provides a simple and engaging platform to help with this.

Currently, when library staff edits or help create reading lists they are added as collaborators to the course. To remove the staff name from the course we need to enter each course one-by-one. As there is a "Reading List Citation Update Task" job that enables to change some information on a set in bulk, we would like to add this option to the job as well.

Within an individual reading list in Alma, there are supported options to search citations by keyword, citation ID, creator, ISBN, ISSN, MMS ID, and Title.

For reading lists with physical items, staff are able to complete the standard workflow of using manage fulfillment options to get a copy, and then receive the items at fulfilment > scan in items to accomplish the temporary move request.

However, the citation still has to be marked as complete.

Being able to go to the reading list citation search, click in the box, and use a wand to scan the barcode and jump straight to the item would save a lot of time with physical processing, especially for lists with large numbers of physical items.

Using ctrl-F is obviously possible to also search the screen, but then you have to use citation information, which can be time consuming to type in, and even though still can be difficult to narrow down - for example, if you are working with a music class where there are multiple items with the same or very similar titles ("Symphony...").

It looks like this was previously requested back in 2018 by Harvard - see LENH-I-5466.

In the classic UI, side-window for adding items is separate to the reading list screen. Side menu can be open and operational simultaneously as the list. It allows users to drag and drop different citations, test links and availability and etc., as they create and work on the reading lists.

In the new UI, the side-window overlays the main reading list screen and reading list becomes not clickable/editable, unless the side-window for adding items is closed.

We would like to suggest adding a feature to quickly exit out of the side pop-up menu by clicking on the left-hand side of the screen in Leganto – the main reading list menu space. This is in addition to the general small cross button at the top right-hand corner.

Impact of Problem

Implementation of a quick exit feature will provide a better experience by allowing users to exit out of the side-menu more efficiently.

Expected Outcome

The quick exit feature is generally available in other applications and provides a quicker exit functionality to users to work on their reading lists.

(initially filled by the « Statistical Category X » fields from the Users subject area).

Right now, to get data about the usage of a reading list by students, we need to query the fields which are only available under the dimension « Student details » of the « Leganto student usage » subject area. Those fields are filled only after signing the Ex-Libris form « Leganto student success measurements service ».
It would be interesting that the statistical category fields only could be filled in order to extract statistical analyses without having to know the students identity. Therefore it would not be necessary to fill the form.

We try to run reports to action large scale tasks looking at our lists as a whole and coverage of specifically tagged priority resources. An element that strongly impacts the effectiveness of this type of work is the additional requirement to look separately at resources to assess electronic and print availability. This means that either (a) additional reporting or (b) additional investigation is required to properly conduct this exercise. This severely limits the range of staff available to conduct this work and makes it an inefficient and cumbersome task. The ability to see all availability for each item citation by citation would significantly improve all of the workflows and processes around this task. It would also be useful if the availability information could accurately reflect what is displayed in Leganto – so this would include availability for any related records. This is because we use the related records parameter in the Leganto discover settings to ensure that citations display both print and electronic availability as these records are separate in Alma.

Drag-and-drop to move citations can be very fiddly as citations shuffle around as you attempt to position the item you’re moving. The recent copy/move to clipboard function, along with the horizontal line for positioning, is a step forward, but can still be difficult to place citations precisely. It would be useful to be able to cut or copy an item and use the cursor to click and place the item exactly where it belongs.

We combine reviewing individual citations via reports and whole list reviewing. To help with this, we would like to be able to filter a reading list to exclude those items instead of including them, that is enable exclusive filtering not just inclusive filtering to focus on specific citations in a list.

For example, we review items tagged as "key reading" in a citation review process, so we would like to be able to EXCLUDE items tagged as "key reading" when reviewing the wider list. This would help to speed up the review process and also make it easier for staff as they would not have to see citations that do not need attention.

We would like this feature to be added to the Leganto interface and made available for all users because there may be scenarios where instructors/students also find it helpful, e.g. if a student wants to exclude a particular item type, or if an instructor wants to exclude all of their key reading to update the wider reading.

Since the June 2024 release it is indicated in the Leganto UI if another institution in a multi-campus environment has physical or electronic holdings. Unfortunately, Leganto users can only see in Primo whether it is a print or an electronic resource. In the Leganto UI, the same icon and the same labeling are used for both. As our users usually have no access to electronic resources from other institutions, it would be an important improvement for them to become able to clearly recognize accessible items immediately in Leganto and not only after many clicks in Primo.
The print screen shows the current display of an electronic resource from other institutions.

Our Unit Readings team do a lot of list management work in Alma rather than through the Leganto new UI, before publishing the lists. They really appreciate the ability to drag and drop citations or use the dropdown menu to move a citation in the Leganto interface, but would also like to have these options available when working on the list in Alma so they don't have to switch between systems at that stage.

Unlike the Find Lists page in the old UI, this would be customisable. Libraries could use it to promote generic lists e.g. study skills or careers resources. We would also like to be able to add information and/or links to sources of help, as well as a link to Primo. We believe that the rationale for Leganto is to complement Primo, not to be seen as an alternative, so we would like to facilitate easy movement between the two products.

"Demand in other lists" is a useful tool for librarians in Alma.

Some librarians work a lot in Leganto. It would make sense that users with librarian roles can see directly in Leganto which books are demanded in other lists, and which ones.

We understand the desire to clean up screens but feel this has gone too far in the staff view of the new UI. Our staff tend to use only features which are obvious to them. The ‘add tag’ feature is much less visible in the new UI and other icons are only visible if you know to hover in the right area e.g. drag handles, three dot menus. Similarly the icon to indicate the existence of a student note is not sufficiently obvious. These are all key features which we encourage staff to use. Please make all these features more visible from the top screen.

Now that Ex Libris have recreated clipboard in the new UI. Staff can only drag and drop one item at a time into a list from Clipboard. Given that some staff may want to move 3 or four items from clipboard into a specific part of a specific section in a very large list. This would currently have to be done one citation at a time. It would be better if clipboard records could be multi selected dragged in order to a specific place in a specific section in a reading list.

When submitting a purchase request from a citation, the default requester is the individual member of staff. Our process requires us to change the requester to one of two team accounts for each purchase request submitted. The 'Owning Library' also needs to be selected each time a purchase request is submitted. Specifically for purchase requests initiated from citations, I would like the ability to set the default requester attributes 'Requester' and 'Owning Library' so these don't need to be changed each time a purchase request is submitted by library staff. Once set, default attributes should be easy to change from the purchase request screen. This change would speed up the process of submitting purchase requests from citations. This requested enhancement would not impact other methods for submitting purchase requests such as the standalone purchase request feature in Alma or the Primo purchase request form.

Students are expected to use both Leganto and Primo and expect a consistent experience. It is confusing when they offer the same functionality but differently. Some suggestions:

• Make the Full details tab invisible in Student View. It does not offer anything extra. Students are used to clicking on the Title in Primo for more details, so this would provide a more consistent experience.

• Replace Full details with some/all of the icons which appear to the right of a citation in Primo. Replacing Full details with the Pin and/or Reference icons would mirror the Primo experience and give Favourites more visibility.

• Ensure that the same icons are used across both products to avoid confusion e.g. Share (Leganto) and Permalink (Primo) icons.

We would like the Leganto Q&A function (Item request Question and Answers) to be enabled when adding items to Leganto from within Primo. This is currently a significant gap.

We use the Q&A feature in Leganto to ask instructors if a physical book is key or wider reading, and if there's a chapter they would like digitising.

If instructors add items from Primo, this Q&A isn't shown, which means we are often missing information we need because we have different purchasing rules for key and wider reading.

The 'eye icon' and count for student usage on citations was removed in the new UI because it gave conflicting information compared to analytics. However, it would help library staff and instructors significantly if there was still some form of flag on a citation when it had usage analytics associated with it. This doesn't need to be a number (respecting the issues raised) - a simple icon would suffice.

This would specifically help library staff because citations sometimes need to be updated to force them to link to our collections (e.g. a citation that has been rolled over for several years with metadata that is now out of date). The easiest way to do this is to delete the item and re-add it, but we do not want to delete a citation if it has analytics associated with it; we will manually update the metadata instead in those cases to preserve the usage information.

Currently, the only way we can check for citation level usage within a list is by opening the list analysis panel and trying to locate the item there, which takes extra time.

For instructors, it would also help them if they could see 'at a glance' which items are and aren't being used on the list (to identify overall trends such as items lower in a section/list not being used as much).

The purpose of this enhancement is for there to be an indicator that shows whether there has been usage or not--the exact nature of the counts, whether they be accessed content or merely opened citations is not a question that needs to be resolved for this feature to be useful

In the old interface, in the list search, there are recommended lists. I think it would be interesting if this feature were also available in the new interface.
In addition, I think it would be interesting for librarians to be able to select reading lists and recommend them to students.

Duplicate + Rollover were folded into a single functionality within the Leganto new UI. We do not want Instructors to be able to roll over lists (so have disabled the Leganto functionality), therefore need to in Alma. Mostly the bulk rollover process works, but where this fails or a single list needs to be rolled over exceptionally, the duplicate function in Alma does not function in the same way as a rollover – citation statuses and library notes aren’t carried over, for instance, resulting in more/duplicated work for library staff. There is a need either for the duplicate function to roll over an individual list, or a single list roll-over option to be introduced.

Currently instructors are able to indent section headings. It would be really useful if they could also indent a particular citation within the sections. This would be particularly useful when there are two editions of a book, as it would make it clearer visually that the two citations are linked. We often list 2 editions of a book because we are unable to buy sufficient copies or there is not much difference between editions. Increasingly we may also have an e-book of a very old edition but only print copies of newer editions. Currently when there are multiple editions in a list, the lists looks long and a bit confusing. It might also be used for other readings which are linked in some way and could be treated as an either/or. Other uses might include associating a film with a book.

When adding items in the Leganto user interface, the material type list is long, but a small number of material types are given prominence as "Most common". These appear in different areas of Leganto, e.g. when editing an existing citation, or when uploading a file to create a new citation.

For the purposes of assisting instructors to correctly add certain item types (Book Extracts, Eoffprints, etc.), we would like to be able to choose which citation types appear in the "Most common" section, and also set the order in which they are listed.

See also Idea Exchange link: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/44428245-allow-configuration-of-the-most-common-items-typ

One such custom status we have created is 'Complete - no eBook available' which we use to signify to academic staff that a citation has been processed by the library but that it has not been possible to purchase an item electronically. For all intents and purpose this status is equivalent to Complete, but provides additional information. It would be preferable if we were able to configure Leganto to define which statuses should be considered as Complete. This would be useful, for example, when filtering citations in Alma, where there are options to filter by Complete and Not Complete (which includes all other citation statuses which are not complete). Leganto also uses the Complete status as an indicator to display certain features to students. For example, links on citations with copyright requests are not displayed if the citation status is not complete. Being able to define whether custom citation statuses should be considered a complete status or not would be helpful in this scenario, allowing academic staff to see more information about the status of the item as well as allowing students to view full content of a citation

Currently you can only attach one bibliographic record to a citation in Alma Course Reserves, and this limits what is shown In Leganto. We would like to have the ability to attach other records to that main citation and have them display indent underneath the main citation, with a visual marker such as an “indentation” so that it is clear that these items are “related” to the citation. This would allow staff to pick different editions, or material formats (or different RDA representations).

For example, library staff could add a physical book bib record to a citation in the Alma list, but then want to add an extra physical record or an electronic record to the same citation. This could be done manually and then display in Leganto in an indented drop down below the main citation.

This could then also improve what is displayed in Leganto. For example, users see a link – next to the view online and more links – that is called “show other options”. Clicking on this would lead to a collapsible section or drop down menu which would show one or two other bib records that the librarian has attached to the main citation. These records would be indented to make it clear to users that these records are part of the above citation and not the next citations in the list.

By linking all these records to one main citation, would mean that they could be seen as on the list and as part of one citation. Therefore, they would be in analytics as one citation.

We have found the options to duplicate vs connect courses causes a lot of confusion for our faculty. It would be helpful if we could add an information icon on each of those options in the search for reading lists that would display more information about when to select Duplicate vs Connect.

Title: Allow the Leganto Detailed Notifications Letter to be "opt in" by default

Idea Exchange link: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/44030202-add-option-for-leganto-detailed-notifications-lett

NERS request: #8146

Describe the functionality being requested:

Please add a setting for the Leganto Detailed Notifications Letter to be switched off by default (so when an Instructor looks at notifications settings in Leganto they will see the option to ‘opt in’ to these notifications, rather than being automatically opted in and having to opt out).

At our institution, course coordinators and Associate Deans are assigned to hundreds of courses but are not the actual instructors of the courses. When we had the Leganto Detailed Notifications Letter switched on, these staff members received hundreds of email notifications that they did not need. This is why we have the Letter switched off, which inconveniences instructors who would benefit from being able to receive the letter. The benefit of being able to have this Letter switched on would also extend to our students.

With an ‘opt in’ setting available, we would be able to switch the Letter back on and improve the Leganto service without inconveniencing course coordinators/Associate Deans of Disciplines.

Technical Requirements:

Add a configuration parameter that allows library staff to determine whether this letter is opt in or opt out by default. Keep the existing options for the Letter (disabled and ‘opt out’), but also add the option for ‘opt in’.

Desired Result:

Under the old UI the citation public note displayed on the full details page, we’d like the ability to configure where it displays or the return of the field to the default page.

Use Case:

Now in the new UI, we have to remember to click on the "Item actions" tab to view applicable notes. This is a problem when reviewing broken links, and the notification task workflow takes you to the full details page to review the citation when you click on "View in Leganto". The need to remember to check this tab is an additional step that adds complexity to our workflow and can be easy to forget.

Our library utilizes the notes field to share information about the item’s availability, such as "Available to watch on a variety of streaming services. Not available through the library."

When reviewing the broken link on the full details page, without seeing that public note field, the broken link appears to be a link that was pulled and is no longer there. It's not until you click on the "Item actions" that you can see it. Having the ability to check this field at a glance helps us respond to broken links faster, better and without wasted time.

We use Leganto questions to ask instructors whether a book chapter should be digitized or not. This works fine when they add a book chapter (manually or via search/Cite it!). However, in many cases, they can only find the whole book via search, and then they edit it and change the material type to book chapter. In these cases, the Leganto questions are not triggered.

We would like Leganto questions to also be triggered whenever someone changes a citation into a book chapter.

Student details in Leganto Student Usage are from the Current User record. It would be much more useful if the User Group and Statistical Categories at the time a list/citation was used were recorded. This way we would be able to analyse data correctly retrospectively. This has been done in the Fulfillment Subject Area.

Many libraries use the course loader integration in Alma to load courses for integration with Leganto. However, course notes cannot be added with the integration. This limits the ability to autoload information that would otherwise be very useful to have in Alma.

Use cases:

• An Alma institution has multiple libraries using courses, and would like to know where a course is being taught, in order to best support the instructor. There is no field in the course for information about a course's physical location, but that could easily be included in a note field.

• A library would like to know if a particular section is crosslisted with other courses, but does not want to use the external ID field to maintain that information, because it could lead to unexpected behavior with LTI. The crosslisting information could easily be included in a note field.

• A library would like to be able to know if a course is affiliated with a particular university interdisciplinary program, separate from the academic department. E.g., suppose a university has a Climate Change Initiative, involving courses from multiple different academic departments. This information could easily be included in a note field when the course is loaded.

In the old interface, when adding a physical edition of a book, you can check "Other formats and editions" in the right-hand side panel. Existing editions are separated into "Electronic versions" and "Other editions". However, in the new UI, both electronic and physical editions are mixed and presented in one single list. If there are many editions of a book and the instructor is only looking to add an electronic version to a citation, then the many editions make it hard to quickly identify the few electronic versions. The list would be more readable if electronic and physical formats were presented in separate categories.

We would like to enhance the blacklist function to show a pop-up message when an item is added if it matches the blacklist criteria.

Currently, the only thing you can do with a blacklisted URL is to change the citation status, which does not give instructors much information on reasons or consequences.

At our institution, we blacklist URLs which might not be copyright compliant so we would like to add links to guidance on copyright and information on how to ask the library to buy/digitise the item where this is the case.

Without an instructor-facing message/pop-up, library staff have to spend time submitting requests to buy/digitise resources and also spend time emailing instructors to advise them about copyright. It also delays the availability of resources because requests to buy/digitise resources are made later than necessary.

We would like a pop-up where the text is configurable and HTML tags enabled in the labels to allow us to explain why the URL has been blacklisted and add links to relevant institutional service guidance.

Users should dismiss the pop-up manually (i.e. not a timed toast message). It would be good if there was also the option to not allow the citation to be added to the list (this should be configurable per institution).

When an item is at a location defined as either "Remote Storage" or "Closed," the Availability disply within the Leganto UI should reflect a different status than "Available at."

When an instructor adds an item that meets one of these conditions to a Reading List in the Leganto UI, the availability label should reflect that it's not "available" which facutly and others interpret to mean "readily available."

Our turnaround time for material to get delivered is usually less than a day, but it can take longer sometimes. The underlying issue is that many of our instructors see the "Available" status from Primo here within Leganto to mean that it's ready to go for their class.

We suggest that in cases like this the Leganto UI should be able to update the availability statement to something such as "Ready for Request" or "Available in X days." The X days could be defined in a setting that reflects the normal amount of time it takes for an item from remote storage or closed locations to be retrieved and delivered to the main library location. The purpose is so that instructors understand that it's not immediately available.

(Note: since Leganto is really just embedded the Primo view it's possible this might not be fixable through Leganto itself)

When rolling over reading lists from one year to the next, lists and course connections are only copied if the new courses have been created. Issues arise when reading lists are linked to multiple courses (e.g., different Canvas IDs for the same course, autumn and spring variants, or different classes/campuses). If not all courses are ready during the import, some connections are lost, leading to extra work and confusion, particularly when updating reading lists between terms.

Ex: If a list is connected to Course_1_2024 and Course_2_2024, but only Course_1_2025 is ready at the time of the first rollover, the new list will be associated to Course_1_2025 as it should.

But by the time Course_2_2025 is ready to be imported in a second rollover, the list will not be associated to Course_2_2025.

Proposed solution:

• Create a placeholder course during roll-over if a linked course is not yet available.

• The placeholder course acts as a temporary connection between the reading list and the future course.

• Once the new course is created, it automatically replaces the placeholder course.

• If the course is never created, the placeholder course remains as a non-searchable link.

This solution ensures continuity in reading list connections and reduces manual work by preventing errors caused by missing course connections.

We would like to be able to switch off the ability to create a list by importing a file. This should also include any instructor facing import options, and include the import option from the 'Add' menu in Leganto.

Depending on the file used and how much the metadata matches our system, using import can create a lot of extra work for library staff when we have to tidy up the results, or instructors have to create the list again using library search.

It isn't obvious in the system when a list has been created using import which means we don't always know why we're seeing strange results. It also creates confusion for instructors because they think they've finished creating their list, but items aren't available, and instructor satisfaction with the library is impacted if they are then asked to redo their list.

(revised version of 9072 from 2024 process)

We would like to be able to hide the "Lock list/section" feature from instructors.

We currently only use the "lock list" feature to lock old reading lists when new ones are created at course list rollover (we do not use "lock section" at all).

We do not want active lists/sections to be locked because this makes it harder for library staff to review them, but some instructors find the lock list/section feature and use it regardless.

Library staff can override this and unlock lists/sections, but we can't relock the list/section because we are then the user who locked it (which prevents the instructor from being able to unlock it).

Currently, this means that library staff have to email instructors to tell them we're unlocking the list/section which creates extra work and adds more time to the list review process. The responses we've received from instructors indicate that they used the feature just because it was there and were happy for the list/section to be unlocked, so it would work better for us to be able to hide it.

Current cataloguing practice means that volume information is no longer included in book titles and instead is located at an item level (item description), which isn't visible in Leganto except when viewing full item details.

This means that there is no easy way to see which volume(s) of the book a record includes which creates confusion when creating, reviewing, and using lists.

Library staff can check our catalogue to identify which volume(s) are in the record and manually edit the public note, but this takes extra time and there is a delay between an item being added and the library adding the information.

We would like the Item record's or collection of item records' attached to the assoicated bib's Description field to be included in the brief view of a citation, including in search results when adding an item to a list

We have disabled certain features in Leganto because we don't want instructors using them. Currently, disabling a feature in Leganto hides any reference to it in the interface, which means that some instructors think they need to find a workaround method instead of not doing it. We would like the option to grey out the button, which would mean it's visible but still disabled. We would also like to be able to add a tooltip that will display a message to explain why the option is greyed out.

An example of this is list duplication - we don't allow instructors to duplicate their own lists because library staff will do it for them. However, because the duplicate button isn't visible once disabled, some instructors attempt to duplicate a list by bulk-copying sections or using imports. If the duplicate option were greyed out with a tooltip, we could add a message to the tooltip to advise instructors to contact the library instead.

For context we provide titles on the eTextbook programme through a 1-2-1 model for particular students in a cohort, so these are not widely available through Library search. We use the reading lists to link these for students to access (Source field in the citation). Occasionally we also, buy eBooks for the Library which are held in Library search, and sometimes these supersede our eTextbook 'Source' link. We would like there to be a function where we can 'lock' a citation from any changes in Alma this should stop the citation from searching for resources using link resolver/resource locate etc. unless we untick the 'lock' citation box

We run a regular analytics report to identify new content in citations on reading lists that instructors have requested the Library should buy or digitise.

Our Library content team will email instructors with the outcome of the requests identified which means they need the email address of the person who created the citation on the list with the new content request.

At the moment, there is no citation-level creator field for instructors' email addresses in Alma analytics, which means that Library staff have to manually create workarounds (e.g. lists of primary identifiers in Analytics bin statements or look-ups) to add them into a working report for library staff.

We would like the citation creator's preferred email address to be a field within Alma analytics to streamline this process, just as it is for the Leganto Review Requester Preferred Email for example.

(revised NERS 9069 from 2024 process)

We would find it very useful to set a limit on the number of times a tag can be used on a list for example to configure tags so that only one item per reading list can be tagged as 'Core'. We use this tag to flag items requested for our eTextbook Programme and this would help us avoid the issue of multiple Core-tagged items.Ideas Exchange: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/43033272-limit-the-number-of-times-an-importance-tag-can-be

Currently the Leganto question feature is not available for items added from the Favorites to a reading list. It would be a useful enhancement if the appropriate questions would be displayed for items added this way.

We set longer lists to open with sections collapsed and would not want to change this. However in the new UI this “sections collapsed” opening screen is overly clean and not very attractive. We would like something which entices students to want to delve further. In the old UI there were thumbnails for each section based on the book covers of the first few citations on the list. The new UI would benefit from something more visual: perhaps a thumbnail or icon for each section.

Currently it is not possible to identify Users who are Collaborators rather than Instructors on lists in Analytics. It would be extremely helpful to have this information available in Analytics.

Currently, when citations are created using the Rialto search scope in Leganto, the citation does not appear in the cart in Alma. This added functionality would allow institutions to further enhance and streamline workflows.

Current workflow:

1. In Leganto, choose “add” and then “search the library,” selecting the Rialto search scope.

2. Search for the required title and add it to the Reading List, we tag the citation as “required for essential reading” to automatically create a purchase request in Alma.

3. From the purchase request in Alma, staff are required to choose “Search in market”.

4. This opens Rialto, where we select the item to purchase.

5. We then select “Link and Add to Cart” to add the item to the cart.

6. We add fund details, reporting codes, etc., and check out the item.

7. Last step is to confirm the order.

We request that steps 3, 4, and 5 be automated or eliminated. When a citation is created and tagged as required for essential teaching by the instructor or Library staff member, the title should automatically appear in the Rialto cart without further staff intervention.

When adding a citation from the library search, you can filter based on "Type" and "Available here" facets in Leganto. This is great, but it would also be helpful if you could exclude facets as well, like you can in Primo. For instance, if you don't want Open Access records you should be able to exclude them. The "Type" facets are usually mutually exclusive (so it isn't as relevant to exclude them), but this is not true for the "Available here" facets. citations can for instance be both "Open access" and "Peer reviewed" at the same time.

Our specific use case is that Open Access records are sometimes lacking certain metadata and/or take focus away from records that are from purchased electronic collections that we want to use. We have cases where records from Institutional Repositories are chosen instead of the publisher-hosted version, which can be detrimental in some cases. Therefore, it would be beneficial to be able to exclude these records in order to better see which record should be chosen.

Find list settings allow librarians to customize the basic and advanced search interfaces in Leganto but it is not available in the new UI. It would be very useful to replicate this function in the new UI interface.

Desired Result:

Much along the lines of the New UI rollout where we had the option to limit it’s displayed to identified faculty; we’d like the ability to limit faculty list creation to those who are specified via an allowlist.

Use Case:

This feature would allow us to disable instructor list creation from the LMS. Our workflow uses the sample list feature to start instructors off, so we would like the ability to limit list creation to those we identify.

We are able to disable the "Hide citation" feature in Leganto, and we would also like the ability to disable visibility dates on both sections and lists. Instructors often add these just because they can, but this can cause problems for students.

For list visibility dates, instructors don't always realise that the list becomes inaccessible. We also don't want instructors to hide lists after the course is finished because students may need it for resits. For sections, instructors don't always release the weeks in good time for students, especially those who need extra time to read resources because of a disability.

The impact on the library is that staff have to spend time emailing instructors to communicate these issues. It's also confusing for instructors if features are available to them but they are then asked not to use them.

For library staff it would be great if Alma could remember - or if staff could save - the additional selections made under facets when looking at reading lists "Assigned to me".

We understand that it is possible to create a display of general message for reading list page or by user role. But it would be very useful to have custom message display for a specific academic department (shows on top for reading list that owned by department). One business case is when we need to convey department specific information to reading list users.

Staff members that only have the Course Reserve Viewer role cannot see course information on records in the new All Titles Search UI. As staff with a viewer role should be able to see course information, the fact that this is withheld in the new UI. This is particularly an issue for large institutions were some staff are not given access to roles to change reading lists. But still need to see if a record is on a course.

We would like to make more use of citation processing rules to further automate our Leganto workflows, but unfortunately we are not able to, due to the inability to create rules based on campus and/or library. We would like to be able to put rules in place such as the following:

1. Where Reading List’s associated course has affiliation to CAMPUS A (which is associated to LIBRARY A), and there is no physical inventory for LIBRARY A, but physical inventory does exist for LIBRARY B (ignoring any electronic inventory), then automatically create a purchase request for LIBRARY A

2. We would also like to be able to include a Requester Note in our citation processing rules that would be appended to any note that already exists in the Requester Note field (for example if you have configured the Course Code to appear in the Requester Note, we would like to append a further note via the citation processing rule so that we end up with something like this:

• MEDI6000; No holdings in CAMPUS A

Technical Requirements:

Add Campus and Library as Input Parameter options in the Purchase Workflow Setup screen, to allow more granularity with citation processing rules.

Add a Note field where a defined note in the rule will be appended to any other contents in the Requester Note field (or will fill the field if there isn’t any pre-existing contents), so that the library staff member can see which citation processing rule was triggered from Leganto.

We have found that some instructors are adding large amounts of text (2000+ characters) in section descriptions and that this does not perform well in the new Leganto UI.

Because the section description is visible, even when the section is closed, it can significantly increase the length of a list and make it hard to distinguish between sections. The new UI also has a feature to hide the section description when you're scrolling in it, and when the description is long this can cause citations to jump from the bottom of your screen to the top when scrolling down the list - this is confusing for users.

It would help streamline the interface if we could set section descriptions to be limited to a few lines of text (suggest around 500 characters). This should be configurable for institutions (limit/don't limit, or by character count).

Desired Result:

For the library to have the ability via a setting or configuration field that allows the library to determine if the New List Exists Banner is displayed on Sample Lists once they have been copied.

Use Case:

Our library uses the sample list feature to provide a list of resources for each subject area to document the textbooks used for each area by our faculty. Once faculty copy the sample list in subsequent semesters, they see the banner indicating “a newer version of this list exists” this notice confuses faculty and they wind up rolling over the previous list instead of using the current version of the library’s sample list.

It would be more useful to have the Primary Identifier for the Event Creator in the 'Leganto Instructor Usage Events' subject area in Analytics as we have some duplicate names which leads to inaccuracies and possible errors when providing statistics and reports. But retaining both would be ideal

It would be very useful for users to be able to hide the information about the number of pages to read. The information that is visible at reading list level and section level.

At our institutions, not all users edit the citations in their lists; and because of this the information about how many pages to read is often inaccurate.

We want to be able to link to a study program/group of courses in Leganto from the study plan.

The link would show all the lists associated to a specific course code, both inactive and active, and display the newest lists first. By displaying the newest lists first, we wouldn't need to update the link every year or semester.

If only active lists are shown, as seems to be the case with this example, then the actual filters (in this case "Active") should be shown: https://bibsys-xc.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/leganto/nui/lists?scope=all_lists&auth=SAML&search=MGBPE301