I've been in my role about 4 years now, and have to say I'm underwhelmed by my fulfillment. I'll give it a 5/10. I feel like too often we're trying to force a "great paper" and give our "best effort" by using "HD spatial" or other unproven new tech because it's the shiny new toy, rather than focusing on quality cohort/experimental design and rigorous proven tech like standard spatial and scRNA-seq. Then we get median UMIs of 0 yet still insist on including the data for vanity's sake. Not to mention reviewer panels unequipped to provide statistical oversight - so many errors are left to readers to find and potential retraction when we could simply have one stats expert to correct common misconceptions and errant applications.

There's also the issue of the downstream effect of my work.…