When using the Author Matching Report to approve individual researchers on records that were imported via smart harvest, we would find it very useful to be able to distinguish the asset status -- that is, to be able to tell if the asset is still provisional or if it is approved. If we approve one author on an asset, and then create an Author Matching Report it is useful context to know that there is a local co-author. It is also helpful to know there is no local co-author for authors that would typically write with other people at our institution. Finally, this would also allow us to see all the non-matches that are on provisional assets, and then make a set of those assets to delete the records that we don't want (for common names this can be over a hundred bad matches for an individual when we first run smart harvest). By identifying if the asset is provisional, it would be much easier to ensure we did not accidentally delete an approved asset just because of one bad author match.

Currently, the Date facet in the research portal includes all types of dates associated with an asset (e.g. created, published, submitted, availability). Some of these dates may be used more for administrative purposes (i.e. we use Submitted for when items like ETDs were added to the repository, which may not be related to when the asset was created), and therefore should not be used for filtering search results for users.

Additionally, because not all of the date types display in the asset details, the search results when using the date facet can be confusing for users. If a user filtered to a certain date range, and results include assets that do not display dates within that range (but do include a date that isn’t displayed), it gives the impression that the date filter did not work correctly.

We would like for the Dates used for searching and faceting to be configurable for the research portal, specifically to be able to specify what date types are included.

When we add a book for a researcher by ISBN, the system correctly puts the book title in the title field and the book subtitle in the subtitle field (example: Title = Epidemic invasions
Subtitle = yellow fever and the limits of Cuban independence, 1878-1930). However, on the researcher record, only the title (Epidemic invasions) displays. When you click the title to get to the Esploro research portal, both the title and subtitle correctly display.

Because our profiles are not public, we can't share a link with this example, but you can see it on a Brandeis profile: https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/esploro/profile/jonathansarna/output/publication.book?institution=01BRANDINST

Issue: We have recently undergone a restructure and many of our internal research centres and units have been moved and report to a Faculty. The affiliated researchers need to reflect this on their profiles. Currently a new organisational unit would need to be added however it is the same organisational unit with the same orgid. We cannot move the orgunit and associated assets and need to create a new orgunit under the parent organisation (then move the assets into it) however the orgid cannot be used as this is a unique identifier. This means we will need to create a new unique identifier and org_unit and then move the associated assets to it.

It would be good if an organisational unit and the assets associated with it could be moved from one branch of the hierarchy to another. Sof from level 2 to level 3 and then also, to accommodate future restructures provide the ability to move units in level 3 to associate them with another department from level 2. For example, out structure was Southern Cross University, School of Education. Southern Cross Unviserty, Centre for Children and Young People. Both 2 level. We want to create a third level and Southern Cross University, School of Education, Centre for Children and Young People. Then we also want to have the flexibility to move the Centre for Children and Young People to the Faculty of Health e.g. Southern Cross University, Faculty of Health, Centre for Children and Young People.

This way we could keep the org unit identifiers the same and not lose or complicate any statistical reports and not have to remap the org unit codes from our researcher load.

Issue: Currently on the researcher profile there is no way to re-arrange the education/qualifications on the profile and there is no logic to how the qualification and education history is displayed i.e. if dates are entered it does not impact the order of display.

Impact: A researcher who is adding Education and qualifications to their profile will want to dispaly their educational qualifications in a particular order, either from most recent to oldest, oldest to most recent, Highest qualification to least (Phd - Undergrad - certificate). Currently to add a missing qualification or to re-order the qualifications all must be deleted.

Desired outcome: As with other segments of the researcher profile it would be ideal if a researcher from their profile could drag and drop the education fields into they order the desire. As with other parts of the researcher profile in the adminsitrator back end iit would also be ideal to have drag and drop enabled to re-order rather than re-enter the qualiifications.

It may also be worth considering whether or not the institution can control what order the education fields are displayed in so they can provide consistency across the profiles. This would require a configuration setting across the profiles that defaults to either date order (newest - oldest or oldest to newest) with the ability to then re-order via drag and drop when required e.g. in the case where someone with a Phd has done a further graduate certificate or other study. Ultimately we woudl like to see a default setting around dates with the ability to override this with drag and drop.

Though many Esploro researcher deposits naturally disappear from the research deposits queue as part of their lifecycle -- approved, returned to researchers, etc. -- for deposits that for one reason or another have to remain in the deposits queue for an extended period, a type of internal note explaining their presence in the brief display would be very helpful.

In our case, our library does the work of seeking OA permissions for deposits, leaving deposits in the queue awaiting responses for a period of days, weeks, and in rare cases months. As you may imagine, this can build up very quickly, and with no obvious indices why the deposits are still there. We already keep "For follow-up" notes of this type in the records, but we have to click into the record to read them; if this or a similar note could display in the brief display, it would make managing dozens of in-limbo deposits much easier. Thank you!

Allow customers the ability to create and store canned messages that can be used when communicating with researchers. Esploro already offers the ability to create custom return reasons that can be selected when returning a deposit. But this feature would be even more useful if selecting of one of those reasons also sent customizable canned message that could be used to provide further instruction to the researcher on how to modify and resubmit their deposit. It would be useful to have a set of canned messages that could be used when approving a deposit to notify the researcher if any changes were made during staff review, such as the addition of metadata or application of an embargo.