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
Data description is a fundamental step in Research Data Management (RDM). When it comes to images, the challenge is increased, as they have characteristics that differentiate them from other typologies. We conducted a study in which we obtained a set of 27 images described according to their content, by researchers of the projects where they are inserted. After obtaining the ground-truth that would support the analysis, we proceeded to two more stages of description, one through an automatic processing tool (Vision AI) and the other through researchers with no knowledge of the images. We concluded that the human description is more elucidative of the images' content, namely at a semantic level. In turn, the automatic tools enhance a more literal description. This study allowed us to reflect on the description of images in a research context and to discuss the potential of formal analysis and analysis of the semantic expression of images.