Yes, we should give you guidance up front. Also, as I frequently say, if you ever have a question about what your editor wants to see in a revision, ask us to review/approve a revision plan. I never want my authors losing sleep over my expectations. Truly.

If we are really serious about deepening our understanding, we need more than high-quality data generation.

We need high-quality refutable scientific hypotheses, high-quality interpretable computational methods, and high-quality training to set up future scientific work force!

Thanks, Keri! Greatly appreciate the privileged experience working together, and your mentorship!

Spatial-aware metrics are indeed timely needed!

💪, hope you've set up all! It's better to have them figured out early than right on the spot!

Not trying to pick a fight. Instead, it is something I, as a postdoc, recently being thinking about, what skills that faculty jobs take and are being interviewed/evaluated for, at least at "junior" level.

I see your point. But I would also argue that industry jobs have better classifications, or at least more explicit naming of duties, e.g. project managers. Ppl are explicitly interviewed for their managing skills. I image faculty just three classifications without explicit evaluation such skills?

May be "writing grants" is just a surrogate for the discrepancy between junior scholars' imaged responsibility of a faculty job, "doing science" vs what the job really takes to do science, where scientific investigation is a small part.

Not grants, but my dissertation in R markdown. Overall, not much problem for me and as I used Rmarkdown as a wrapper of latex for most of the part, even formatting, given the final output is a pdf.