Three stage interview after sending your application. 1. Initial interview (virtual) with hiring manager and a writing test: discusses why you applied for the role and your motivation to work for EMJ. general interview questions and really relaxed. 2. Competency based interview with two members of staff on the editorial team (in-person): was okay, asked roughly 15 questions in total and asked questions around your experiences. 3. Values based interview with two members of staff from other departments (virtual): definitely an intimidating experience but as the interview went on it felt like conversation about myself, my goals and what I like and dislike about those who supervised me in the past. Overall I liked how transparent they made the interview process. I knew what the interview process would be like before I sent my application.

Overall, mixed. Three-stage interview process. First interview with the hiring manager, which went well and gave me a positive impression of the company. Questions in this first interview included: what's one strength and one weakness about my writing ability? How am I committed to developing both personally and professionally? The interviewer was very personable and emphasised the culture of collaboration at EMJ, and the importance they place on values in their employees. I was then invited to an in-person interview in the EMJ London office. My experience in this interview wasn't very positive. It seemed to me that after I gave my first response they decided I wasn't right for the job, and subsequently withdrew their attention from the interview. The interviewers kept looking behind me, and generally didn't seem interested in anything I had to say. I ultimately got the impression that they would rather have been doing something else. It's difficult to engage with someone and give detailed responses when you feel like your attention isn't reciprocated. This is exactly how it seemed in my interview with EMJ. While their lack of focus was very subtle and they weren't rude to me overtly, I still feel like the interview reflects poorly on the company, and could've been improved. Also, the format of the interview might have contributed to my negative experience. They asked around 15 questions, ranging from: what do I know about the role? to what do you know about peer-review? My interviewers didn't really converse with me or interact with me, but rather kept asking me questions. I didn't feel like they were listening to my responses. It didn't feel like a conversation, like an interview ideally should, but rather a grilling.