{"references": ["Alexiou, E., Ebrahimi, T. (2018) Point cloud quality assessment metric based on angular similarity IEEE 2018 978-1-5386-1737-3/18 IEEE", "Ameisen, D. et.al. (2013) Stack or trash? Quality assessment of virtual slides. Pathology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1746\u20131596, 2013. 3", "American Museum of Natural History (2018) Fluid Preserved Specimens. https://www.amnh.org/our-research/natural-science-collections-conservation/generalconservation/ health-safety/fluid-preserved-specimens.", "Anderson N. I. (2017) Item Driven Image Fidelity (IDIF) or \"HITTING the Digital Capture Sweet Spot\", Smithsonian Digitization.", "Ari\u00f1o, A. H., Galicia, D. (2005). Taxonomic Grade Images. In: H\u00c4USER et al. (eds.): Digital Imaging of Biological Type specimens. A Manual of Best Practice. Results from a study of the European Network for Biodiversity Information: 41-55. Stuttgart.", "Cignoni, P. Rocchini, C., Scopigno R. (1988) Metro: Measuring Error on Simplified Surfaces Computer Graphics Forum Volume 17 (1988) pp. 167-174"]}

This report describes a set of image quality management methods aligned with six kinds of digitisation workflows covered by the ICEDIG project [46]: (1) Microscopic Slides, (2) Skins and Vertebrate Material, (3) Liquid preserved specimens, (4) Pinned Insects, (5) Herbarium Sheets, and (6) Rapid 3D Digitisation of Natural History Collections. The image quality management methods corresponding to each type of digitisation workflow are presented in separate sections. Each section describes: the quality standards that need to be observed, the digitisation workflows, the quality assurance activities to be performed during digitisation (focused on verifying that production processes deliver standard compliant products), the quality control activities that are performed after digitisation (focused on verification of products after processing), and the software and hardware tools which are used to support these quality management activities.