Elsevier interview questions

The process itself was thorough and well-structured. I went through four stages over approximately ten weeks: an initial screening call with HR, two panel interviews including a writing assignment, and a final conversation with the hiring manager and a VP. The interviewers were engaged, thoughtful and clearly knew what they were looking for. The writing assignment was interesting and the feedback I received throughout was specific and encouraging. The hiring team was warm and communicative when contacted directly. My hiring manager answered follow-up questions in detail and gave me a real sense of what working in the team would look like. One thing worth noting: the final stage was described as an "informal" 30-minute chat with the VP, but in practice it was the most structured and intense interview of the entire process, with rapid-fire questions including things like "describe yourself in three words." Not a complaint as such, just worth being prepared for the fact that "informal" doesn't necessarily mean relaxed. It is also not technically the final, there is a short 'vibe check' call with the CMO, if you're selected. The HR communication was a significant weak point. There were two occasions where I had to reach out for clarification and both emails were ignored. After my final interview it took over a month to receive an outcome, despite two follow-up emails to the recruiter which went unanswered. There was no acknowledgement of timeline delays, no proactive updates, and no response to my nudges. The eventual rejection email, while kind in its wording, came only after I sent a firm email requesting closure.