In late 2023, I began applying for editorial positions at Springer Nature, specifically with Nature Communications. I submitted my CV and cover letter for an associate or senior editor role and was soon contacted for an initial screening interview. As part of the process, I was asked to complete a written test involving the assessment of three manuscripts for their suitability for peer review. I was given one week to complete this task. While the task itself was not overly difficult, it was time-consuming, and I felt that my expertise was being used without appropriate recognition or compensation. After submitting the test, I was scheduled for a three-hour interview conducted via video conferencing. The interview panel included senior members of the editorial team. The first hour consisted of standard behavioral questions, along with discussions on trends in the field and knowledge of open-access publishing. After the first hour, the panel changed, and I was tasked with evaluating two manuscripts within the following hour. The final portion of the interview involved discussing my evaluations and justifying my editorial decisions. During this stage, one member of the panel was critical in their questioning, which made the process feel unnecessarily adversarial. Another interviewer asked technical questions, but their delivery sometimes made it challenging to fully grasp the intent of their queries. At the end of the interview, I was invited to ask questions of my own. However, the responses were brief and felt dismissive, leaving me uncertain about the professionalism of the process. I was told to expect a decision within two to three weeks. When I followed up after this time, I was asked to wait an additional week, only to be informed that another candidate had been selected. It was particularly disappointing to later discover that the manuscripts I evaluated—those I recommended for peer review—were eventually published in the journal, indicating alignment between my decisions and the journal’s standards. Four months later, I applied for a similar editorial role in a related field. The process mirrored my previous experience: a manuscript assessment and a lengthy interview. During the interview, I encountered a different panel but was once again asked to evaluate manuscripts and justify my decisions. Although I felt more confident this time, the feedback I received after the process was vague and unconstructive. I was told my analysis lacked depth in referencing prior literature and emerging trends, despite my efforts to provide a thorough evaluation. Adding to my frustration, the manuscripts I evaluated during this round were also later published, and the position I had applied for was re-posted shortly afterward. This raised questions about whether the company was genuinely seeking to fill the role or merely leveraging the recruitment process for other purposes. Despite my negative experiences, I was contacted again a month later about a different position within the company. This time, the role involved custom media editing. The written test for this position was extensive, requiring line editing, structural editing, story writing, and ad editing—all within a one-week timeframe. Once again, I felt that my work was being used without appropriate consideration. The subsequent interview was more conversational and focused on career objectives, but after waiting over three months with no update, I had to reach out for information. I was eventually informed, after yet another delay, that the position had been offered to someone else. In conclusion, my experiences with Springer Nature’s recruitment process have been deeply disappointing. The process seemed exploitative, relying heavily on candidates’ time and expertise without offering meaningful opportunities. The repeated delays, vague feedback, and lack of transparent communication only added to my dissatisfaction. Based on these experiences, I caution future candidates to approach the recruitment process with caution, as it may not value your time and effort as much as you expect.