There were two rounds in the interview process. The first round was more of a general discussion, focusing on understanding my background, experience, and overall approach to work. It felt conversational and helped set the context for the role. The second round was a structured behavioural interview, where the panel asked specific questions around past experiences, how I handled different situations, and examples of problem-solving, stakeholder management, and delivery. For anyone preparing for the interview, my suggestion would be to keep your responses simple, clear, and structured. Try to support your answers with real-life examples from your experience, as this helps demonstrate your practical understanding and makes your responses more credible. Using examples that highlight how you approached a problem, the actions you took, and the outcomes achieved can make a strong impression.

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Be transparent about salaries and live roles vs. talent pooling, close outdated postings, and provide meaningful feedback to candidates.