Own media-type for edited volumes
Today you have to use the "book"-mediatype for edited volumes and then have to change the author-fields manually to the editor-fields. It would be more comfortable, if edited volumes have their own media-type with editor-fields instead of author-fields, so that you don't have to edit them manually every time. (And adding articles to this edited volume should only have the relevant fields for this article, e.g. article-author(s), article-title, page-numbers.)
Upgrade Storage
That's the last thing, where Citavi has an advantage over Zotero.
Attaching chapters to books more closely has been much requested and would definitely be nice, but Zotero isn't well set up to add it, so unlikely on the short term at least
@bwiernik:
Unfortunately in my topic, I often have to enter them manually and cannot use the browser-plugin.
@adamsmith:
In the technical handling, edited volumes may be not very different from books, but bibliographical they are very different. And even if bibliographical standards are ignored, it is not a good usability to change the authors to editors manually for every edited volume. And it is also not good usability, if you have to search the relevant entries for the articles among all the entries that are only relevant for the corresponding edited volume. E.g. I search for the pages-field every time.
We have to admit, that this is done much more comfortable in Citavi, where edited volumes and the articles in them are handled differently than monographs.
I am puzzled, though, what sorts of books you are entering that don't exist in any library catalog? Do you have an example?
Where I disagree is that edited books are "bibliographical very different":
In all citation styles I'm aware of, both German and English, the only difference is the addition of ed./Hrsg. in some form. Otherwise they're cited the exact same way (which is why, as bwiernik points out, metadata standards treat them the same; libraries, too, btw -- it's very rare that you can distinguish in a search/filter between monographs and edited books)
"Citavi is unusual in handling them separately."
But this makes Citavi very nice to use.
@adamsmith:
"Again, I agree with the second point -- having chapters better associated with edited volumes would be great"
And not only better connected, but also with a special input-mask for articles in an edited volume, so that you don't have to search the correct input-fields between all the other fields.
"I am puzzled, though, what sorts of books you are entering that don't exist in any library catalog? Do you have an example?"
E.g. with research that isn't done in Universities, but in companies. Or with collections of grey literature.