Elsevier reviews

Substantial raises and promotions were extremely hard to come by (unless you call a 2% raise after a year's worth of 50-60 hour weeks of hard work "substantial"). One could work their tail off for a year under the false premise of a forth-coming promotion for the next year (installed 4 MONTHS after start of Q1), only to be told in Q4 that management had decided to change course and not provide the promotion that had been all but promised. I saw repeat examples of management failing to coach ineffective employees, failing to let go and replace folks who were destroying their respective departments, and other managers who harbored significant favoritism within departments--providing growth opportunities to some who scantily deserved them, while denying those same opportunities to others who truly did deserve them. I witnessed managers committing basic HR errors such as promoting sexist attitudes and discussing religion and personal issues during the course of a business meetings, and not being held accountable after HR department was notified.

Below average salary for "low end" jobs Endless costcutting - staff numbers are cut to the bone and editorial services are being minimised to a quality affecting degree. Yet we can still send selected sales and editorial staff off on expensive jollies every year? Sweeping changes to organisation announced out of the blue but no systems in place to handle those changes. Talk is of quality content, while undercutting all the staff trying to ensure that is actually the case. No criticism allowed of management decisions- surely these decisions should be challenged to keep ideas fresh and ensure they are robust?