Elsevier Development Editor reviews

3.5

67% would recommend to a friend

(51 total reviews)

Kumsal Bayazit

20% approve of CEO

32% positive business outlook

Development Editor employees have rated Elsevier with 3.5 out of 5 stars, based on 51 company reviews on Glassdoor. This indicates that most Development Editor professionals have a good working experience there. Elsevier is rated in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) by Development Editor professionals compared to other employers within the Audiovisual y medios de comunicación industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

51 reviews
2.0
Sep 23, 2011
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The overall company Elsevier is good and has some outstanding divisions and leaders in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the Science & Technology publishing division is a set-back for the company as a whole. Here are the great things about the parent company: - Excellent benefits - Flexibility in work locations - International appeal and recognition - Brand name - Innovative products

Cons

The cons are very specific to the Science & Technology publishing group. Having exposure to many parts of the overall company, it is painfully obvious that this division does not represent it's strengths in any way. This really the fault of the management as there is some amazing talent within, but they always end up leaving because of the way the business is run. - Management (S&T) needs a complete overhaul. They make decision that seem to almost ruin the company. - Publishing practices are extremely outdated, they do things like skip copy editing to keep up with competitors, have no electronic book practices or plans, and completely outsource all production. - Progress is stifled. While many employees are talented and have great ambition and ideas, whenever these are brought to a meeting, they are immediately squelched by old school thoughts. - Publishing Committee Meetings are extremely negative and always about how nothing can be sold and we are always behind the competition. - No promotional opportunities from within. Talented employees are often overlooked and people who are incompetent and fail often seem to get promoted. This is usually due to senior manager promoting their friends with complete disregard to employees that perform. When this happens, the good people leave and then it's even worse.

1.0
May 20, 2011
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great colleagues at lower levels, pride in the quality of the content produced, people take personal responsibility for maintaining high standards in the face of these being eroded by falling production values and the deep rift between Editorial and Operations silos.

Cons

The (obviously essential) rush towards eReader and online books is not being properly resourced. Staff without requisite training being dumped with the workload, despite deep staff cuts and without any reduction in their existing work. Management make sudden and unplanned demands for information and analysis from commissioning staff but don't reduce commissioning expectations, while seeming to make no progress towards effective solutions to the IT challenges of the move to e-pub. Operations cut service levels to editorial groups, state that there is no loss of quality, and noone in management calls them on it.

1.0
Apr 19, 2011
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Overall, publishing is a very dynamic field undergoing tremendous changes, and as one of the biggest players in the field, Elsevier is uniquely suited for someone wishing to learn the ropes. The London office is relatively laid back and they are fairly flexible to accommodate specific working arrangements as circumstances demand.

Cons

Where to start? Overall, there seems to be very little regard for employees. I have worked there for over six years (and am currently freelancing for them, although not for much longer), and the contempt with which employees are treated beggars belief. Departments are made redundant at a moments notice and salaries are kept at a ridiculously low level, while senior management continues to engage in charades about 'valuing our people'. Employee opinions are frequently sought to asses the lay of the land (i.e. the levels of dissatisfaction), but very little - if anything - ever comes of it and as job security has become increasingly volatile, I would venture to guess that there is a certain amount of knowledge that people surveyed in January won't be around by July. The hiring policy seems very erratic and training is almost non-existent. Rather than designating a senior member of staff or manager to the training of new employees, newcomers are usually left to their own devices or are trained by editorial assistants or whoever happens to pass by when help is needed. An incredible amount of time is wasted on providing "soft" skills (such as negotiation, time management or how to reduce stress), whereas actual training to do one's job does not happen in any way worth mentioning. Obviously, with the publishing industry in flux, it is difficult to maintain those intangible benefits that have defined publishing (such as attending author events, etc.), but while no efforts has been made to motivate staff by raising salaries appreciably, all other benefits have been reduced to a bare minimum and editorial work at Elsevier has deteriorated to a sausage factory where metrical targets have superseded any kind of concern for the finished product, the customer, or the author. With outsourcing to India taking up momentum, most tasks that made editorial fun and interesting have now been sent off-shore, while the drudge has been left for the UK staff, who conveniently double as a white-faced facade for a 'respectable' publishing business rooted in Europe/the USA.

Viewing 46 - 48 of 51 Reviews

Glassdoor has 2,535 Elsevier reviews submitted anonymously by Elsevier employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Elsevier is right for you.