That would indeed solve my problem—in the test community I have set up, I have used the community title to act as/refer to the journal title (History of Media Studies). So if the automated citation generation were to revert to the community title—instead of the collection title—my problem would be solved. (And there wouldn’t be a need to add the settings option I mentioned.)
It’s an interesting difference between (journal) “issue” collections and “book” collections—since the latter also seem to insert the collection title in the citation. In the case of books, this seems like the expected and appropriate behavior. Whereas for (journal) “issue” collections the expected and appropriate behavior would be to insert the community title.
My only question is about PubPub users setting up a community as, say, a publisher. “Book” collections would be cited correctly, since the auto-generated citation pulls the collection title. But if that press also intended to house a journal in the community, using “issue” collections, the community title (presumably the press name) would not match the journal name. But maybe mixing journals and books under a single “publisher” community is a misuse of the idea of a community?