Joana Patrícia Rodrigues

Abstract
Research data management is essential for safeguarding and prospecting data generated in a scientific context. Specific issues arise regarding data in image format, as this data typology poses particular challenges and opportunities; however, not much attention has been given to data as images. We reviewed 109 articles from several research domains where images were used either as data or metadata to understand how researchers specifically deal with this data format, and what are your habits and behaviors. We use the Web of Science (WoS), considering its five main areas of research. We included in the initial corpus the most relevant articles by research domain, selecting the ten most cited articles in WoS, by year, between 2010 and 2021. The selected articles should be in English and in open access. The results found that images have been used in scientific works numerous times, but, unfortunately, few are those in which they are the central element of the study. Photography is the type of image most used in most domains. In terms of the instruments used, the Technology and Life Sciences and Biomedicine domains use the microscope more, while the Arts and Humanities and Physical Sciences domains use the camera more. We found that the images are mostly produced in the context of the project, rather than reused by third parties. As for their collection scenario, these are mostly produced/used in a laboratory context. The overwhelming majority of the images present in the articles are digital, and only a small part is analog. We verify that Arts and Humanities are more likely to perform qualitative types of analyses, while Life Sciences and Biomedicine overwhelmingly use quantitative analyses. As for the issues of sharing and depositing, Life Sciences and Biomedicine is the domain that stands out the most in the tasks of depositing and sharing images. It was found that the licenses of a project are intrinsically related to the motivations for sharing results with third parties. Description, a fundamental step in the data management process, is neglected by a large number of researchers. The images are mostly not described or annotated and when this happens, researchers don't provide much detail about this.

Abstract
Indispensable in many contexts, images are fundamental in the tasks of representation and transmission of information. In the scientific context, images can be tools for researchers seeking to see their data properly managed. Research data management guides in this direction as it determines necessary phases in the life cycle of projects. The description phase is fundamental as it is an essential means for data context, safeguarding, and reuse. The description often occurs through metadata models composed of descriptors capable of attributing context. However, there is one common aspect: the values associated with these descriptors are always textual or numeric. Through studies and work developed over the last few years, we propose a new approach to description, where images can have a preponderant role in the description of data, assuming the role of metadata. We present several pieces of evidence, point out their challenges and determine the opportunities this new perspective can have in the research. Images have specific characteristics that can be leveraged in improving data description. Historical evidence establish that images have always been used and produced in research, yet their representational ability has never been harnessed to describe data and give more context to the scientific process. ©, Joana Rodrigues and Carla Teixeira Lopes. Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Abstract
Research data management (RDM) practices are critical for ensuring research success. Data can assume diverse formats and data in image format have been understudied in RDM. To understand image management habits in research, we have conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers from four research domains. Most researchers do not formally manage their images, nor do they develop RDM plans. They assume that image management is not a topic discussed at project meetings. In turn, they tend to perform some individual practices, depending on the context and their own opinion, such as creating captions to describe the images and organizing and storing the images in specific locations. However, they see these habits as necessary and admit that they will start to do so in a formal and collaborative way with the working group. These results provide valuable information on practical aspects of the use and production of images in research.

Abstract
Research data management is an essential process in scientific research activities. It includes monitoring data from the moment it is created until it is deposited in a repository so that later it can be accessed and reused by others. Sharing and reuse are the last steps in this process. It is essential to ensure that the data stored in digital repositories is well preserved in the long term and that its adequate interpretation and future reuse is guaranteed. Following this debate, questions arise related to the interoperability of systems and the suitability of platforms. In this study, we study how data management platforms can solve the problems associated with description, preservation, and access in digital media, making their usefulness evident. We identify some of the most relevant repository platforms in the scope of research data management, offering the scientific community an aggregating view of the various solutions and their main characteristics, thus aiming at a better understanding of them for their appropriate choice.

Abstract
Research data management (RDM) includes people with different needs, specific scientific contexts, and diverse requirements. The description is a big challenge in the domain of RDM. Metadata plays an essential role, allowing the inclusion of essential information for the interpretation of data, enhances the reuse of data and its preservation. The establishment of metadata models can facilitate the process of description and contribute to an improvement in the quality of metadata. When we talk about image data, the task is even more difficult, as there are no explicit recommendations to guide image management. In this work, we present a proposal for a metadata model for image description. To validate the model, we followed an experiment of data description, where eleven participants described images from their research projects, using a metadata model proposed. The experiment shows that participants do not have formal practices for describing their imagery data. Yet, they provided valuable contributions and recommendations to the final definition of a metadata model for image description, to date nonexistent. We also developed controlled vocabularies for some descriptors. These vocabularies aim to improve the image description process, facilitate metadata model interpretation, and reduce the time and effort devoted to data description. © 2022 Joana Rodrigues and Carla Teixeira Lopes Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.