From feedback we received from Instructors, they would like the ability to add students as collaborators on specific reading lists. This would enable course students to collaborate on the compilation of materials and sharing of comments on them as part of learning and research activities.
To date it seems the ability to add students as collaborators is limited to Alma-side changes - see the idea which was added to production in May 2018 in https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/33076474-adding-a-collaborator-needs-to-assign-instructor-r

We can see there may be data privacy concerns from some 'free searching' of users without a role, but wondered whether either the LTI aspect (Instructor role in the course), or else the Roadmap's suggestion of uploading student cohorts with course affiliations would enable a second look at this functionality.

The suggest functionality doesn't seem to get a lot of uptake and Instructors are wanting to open up the creation/editing of shared lists, but the only way we can easily do this is manually, name by name, which is not very scalable/flexible.

Although there are concerns around anonymity of list and item level discussions, instructors are interested in being able to easily get a course-level overview of the discussions on their lists, and items on their lists. Currently the Notifications can help to get instructors to individual comments, but these have no course context, having list filtering and no course details. Being able to see whole discussions from notifications and seeing the courses with which they are associated would help greatly here.

For example, if a lecturer is seeking feedback on assigned readings on a list, it would be useful to be able to see from a list or from notifications, a overview of the 'active discussions'. without having to click into every item to see. This is a quite generic idea as lots of specific aspects could be added, but useful to understand others' thoughts here.

We noticed that there are redundant punctuations displayed in the citations added from Alma, could these redundant punctuations not show when adding the citations into the reading list?

I do know that Leganto uses "," to separate different fields like author, edition and publisher. It would be clearer and easier for students to read the details of the citations without these redundant punctuations.

We notice that what appears in the MARC record would be directly copied to the citation, please could an enhancement be made to check if the existing field has punctuation at the end and remove it from display.

Public Notes (instructor notes on resources visible to list users) are treated oddly in Leganto compared to other reading list systems - that is they are not given equal status as other citation metadata fields in the Citation Edit form.

Public Notes are regularly used by Instructors to annotate or qualify resources; to comment on and direct students as to the quality, purpose, priority, and considerations of using certain resources, or parts of resources.

In that sense the Public Note should be accessible for editing when editing all other item metadata (such as chapter title etc.

Currently the Public note field appears only in the Create citation dialogue, but not in the Edit citation form which is confusing to all list editors, whether academics or Library staff.

Having to click into the full view of an item to add a pubic note lessens the utility of having an instructor public note when editing items. Frequently users will add items and then want to add a comment, or a tag etc, having to click into separate boxes in different parts of the process is inefficient.

It would be very useful to be able to have configuration in Alma that would allow citations with a specific list of defined Material Types to be set to citation status: Complete and Copyright Status: Not Required or Approved automatically when they first are created on the Reading List. This would save staff working on Reading lists where there are numerous citations which need no copyright approval or should be auto Approved and need no user intervention, to be automatically marked complete if they matched a configurable list of material types exiting in Alma already.

At the moment it takes 7 clicks for citations which do not require copyright auditing to be set to the desired copyright status and citation status. Staff need to edit the citation, click the Copyright Attributes tab, open the copyright status combo box, select Not Required or Approved, Save the Citation, Click the breadcrumb to return to the Reading List, and finally Select Citation Complete

Below are two example use cases where we see a configurable rule system could allow us to automatically process citations on a reading list without needing user intervention.

IF Material Type: Website
THEN Set Copyright Status: Not Required
AND THEN Set Citation Status: Complete

IF Material Type: E-Book
THEN Set Copyright Status: Approved
AND THEN Set Citation Status: Complete

A configuration area where institutions could create some logical rules around Material Types or even other parameters and how they would like to automate citations would be most welcome and eliminate some of the very manual process as it stands now.

Leganto gives the possibility to
- link to a specific course (and display the list(s) associated to this course)
- get an overview of all the reading lists belonging to a specific academic departments, through their course association

The missing link in between is the association of a smaller number of courses, belonging to the same academic department or not:
the study program.

Librarians and instructors could associate courses to a study program as easily as they can associate a list to a course.
Students could search for a program in the find list interface.
An overview of all the lists within a given study program could also be displayed by a study program permalink, on the same model as permalink to course.