AAAS reviews

People are worked to the bone with no clear path to promotion or pay increases. Dreadful compensation for anyone sub-senior level, and the perks don't make up for it. Highly intelligent and devoted staff are undervalued, especially considering the organization's role in the world of scientific research (Science is a source for about half of the science stories in mainstream media and the journal of record on Nobel Prize-winning research). The justification is they're a nonprofit and their brand recognition leads to superior opportunities, which isn't wrong. Too bad those opportunities only exist elsewhere. Diversity is a mixed bag—staff represent all kinds of ethnic and geographical backgrounds with solid gender parity; however, you won't find many ordinary people who believe quality of life goes hand in hand with income and job security. Perhaps that comes with the territory in a space closely aligned with academia.

Role was heavily focused on coordination and acting as a middleman, with limited hands-on marketing execution Internal processes were inconsistent and often lacked clear structure or documentation Communication across teams was misaligned at times, leading to conflicting direction and priorities Tools and technology were outdated Scope of the role occasionally shifted into client-facing responsibilities, despite being hired for an execution-focused position Limited support or guidance from management when challenges arose Compensation did not align with responsibilities and workload