I had initially applied for ARE (Academic Research Editor), but was shortlisted for QA (Quality Analyst) after I scored well on their preliminary test that had objective questions. Round 1 - Preliminary test This test may be common for editors across all divisions. It had questions in three sections: easy, medium, difficult. You have to have some kind of preparation before answering the questions in difficult type. Round 2 - HR HR screened me with basic questions about: what my strengths and weaknesses were, my understanding of the role and that of the company, and how I'd rate myself on my editorial skills. I was told that because my score in the first test was good, I was shortlisted for the QA role, which is the role one level above ARE. However, she told me the following round of test would be for both the roles. Round 3 - Technical test ARE: Many short passages (technical and non-technical) to edit and rephrase, and answer why the edits were made. One long passage (technical) for thorough editing. QA: Already edited passages need to be commented on and checked whether they were correctly or incorrectly edited. Provide written, detailed feedback on one edited passage pointing out errors and kinds of errors made by the editor. Around 10 questions on editing. Round 4 - Technical interview I was interviewed by 2 people: one lead, another manager. The interview process went on for more than 45 minutes and it was exhausting. I have listed the questions in the next section. After the technical round I was made aware by the consultant that I was selected for ARE role and not the QA role. I was told I didn't have experience in academic editing to become a QA. I rejected the offer because it was an underpaying job.