Pros
- You will work with over-qualified, brilliant specialists who are the only reason the journals function. - The option for fully remote/WFH is there. - The concept of open-access publishing is a credible motivator. Which makes the internal focus on volume over quality even more frustrating.
Cons
- Performance reviews (especially annual) are not an honest assessment of merit. Ratings are subject to a forced distribution exercise where managers are made to place a certain percentage of staff in lower categories to satisfy a team-wide quota. You can hit your targets and still receive a low score simply because the spreadsheet requires it. - The company’s "progression pathways" are often undermined by the rating system. Advancement is frequently gated by numerical scores that JMs admit are context-blind and do not account for the individual nuanced difficulties within assigned portfolios or technical barriers. This creates a ceiling where merit and interview success can be invalidated by arbitrary metrics, and are almost wholly dependant on the luck of what portfolio, journal, and section you get placed in. - There is a culture where certain staff are fast-tracked for promotion regardless of actual competence. These individuals are often pulled away for "visibility" tasks and asked to provide "training sessions" to others, while their colleagues are forced to absorb their daily tasks and forfeit their own resources and waiver budgets, to cover the workload. This creates a massive imbalance where the people doing the actual work are penalized to support the optics of a few. - There is a massive disconnect between the "Quality First" training and the reality of the job. Internal performance is measured almost entirely on volume. If you take the time to follow the integrity standards you were trained on, you will miss your quotas and be penalized. - Chronic hardware and software issues are common. Significant working time lost to these failures is treated as a personal productivity issue rather than a business failure. You are essentially blamed for missing targets while being forced to work with broken tools. - Frequent restructuring and mid-year criteria changes often invalidate months of pipeline work. Targets are rarely adjusted to reflect these shifts, forcing staff to choose between hitting unrealistic numbers and maintaining the standards they were hired to uphold. - There is toxic-positivity culture and heavy pressure to just say "yes" to every strategy. Disagreement with, and/or data-backed feedback against company, and even portfolio, and journal level strategies, are often dismissed as a lack of alignment. The culture disproportionately rewards self-promotion and compliance over those who do their job well and offer critical thinking in favour of the company's future.