yeah, the super obvious, easy to fix issues should be fixed before submission! Some stuff takes stubbornness to fix though (like getting equations in an equation array to line-break so they don' too into the margins, but not messing up the indentation/alignment scheme while doing so)

I also just hate being nagged at by warning messages. Even if the warnings don't have actual consequences for the PDF, I prefer to make them go away

Haha - well Overleaf is always going on about something. If it looks OK then I just ignore it.

I generally fix what I can but I always know that if Kat is on the co-author list, she will take care of the rest!

lol, that is true! I suspect it’s why I sometimes get invited to use the overleaf to contribute comments to papers I’m like 10th author on (usually that would warrant sending minor comments by email after getting a pdf copy). People know I’ll fix shit 😂

My particular pleasure though is writing abstracts. It's like one of those NYT word puzzles. You get 250 words - go.

Widowed section headers are the thing I hate most, but failure to learn how to do leading double quotes in TeX is a close second.

oh the quotes one gets me too! Overleaf lets people do normal quotes, but I haven't tested to see if that gets messed up when one goes to upload to AAS or arXiv. I always just fix it to the standard latex way anyway when other people don't

Back in '86 when TeX was pretty new, Scott Tremaine started off his summary talk at a conference by going on about how everyone should learn about how to do double quotes in TeX.

I respect that. I'm close to adding pages to my website with advice I end up repeatedly sending collaborators including latex pet peeves, figure pet peeves with matplotlib suggestions for fixing them, and how to use ADS to make your references not suck (even with bibtex people do it badly) 😂

Changing the subject a bit, I also hate standard section headings. When I'm FA I prefer using them to actually say something: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3...

I agree! I've been trying to be better with that because I know I sure don't read papers I'm not reviewing linearly or in their entirety. Descriptive headings make it a lot easier to skip around! (I also try to make sure figure captions can more or less stand alone for people *really* skimming)

YBYA!! Yes, you want figure captions that convey the main idea of the paper, not just what the different line colors mean!

Yes, although I did once have a collaborator send me an email saying collaborator #2 had rewritten a figure caption and that I better mount another disk to download the revised paper. (Collaborator #2 was well-known for writing half-page figure captions....)

I do believe I had to persuade my coauthors to keep a *nearly* half page figure caption of mine recently 😂

Oops - you've never published a paper of any sort with the person I have in mind.

Hmmm... I had one like that - wonder if it's the same person. For this and other similar deeds of daring (like exceeding his talk allotment by 100%) I've called him the Bruckner of astronomy.