Pros: * Recruiters were polite Cons: * I’ve interviewed twice with Elsevier and also sister company LexisNexis and both times the roles seemed unclear or inconsistent with the original description. * Roles stay advertised for months even while “final stage candidates” are already in play — feels like they’re building a pipeline of candidates rather than hiring urgently. * Feedback was vague and not very actionable (in one case, the “feedback” was simply what I had already said I wanted to improve). * Salary conversations felt awkward — impression that they are looking for candidates willing to accept very low offers. * Overall, they seem more interested in desperate candidates willing to compromise, rather than finding the right mutual fit. Advice to Candidates:
Treat interviews as practice opportunities — you may learn from the process, but don’t expect serious outcomes given how long roles stay live and how mismatched job descriptions can be. Advice to Management:
Be transparent about salaries and live roles vs. talent pooling, close outdated postings, and provide meaningful feedback to candidates.

Three stage interview process, first stage chat with members of team, second stage is a presentation and final stage is another chat with members of team. They give you a presentation in second stage related to an in house problem which imo if you’re asking someone to present you should compensate them for their time instead of trying to get free work out of them. Reached the final stage for which they call you into their London office then got generic rejection email 2 weeks after despite asking for feedback their whole process looks like they just waste a candidates time