I had two screening interviews, a 3-day-long "test" presentation (where you analyze and present data) and one in-person interview. The initial screening interview was scheduled by someone who had a very high title but was incredibly young and highly disorganized. That person mis-scheduled interviews for the wrong time multiple times, scheduled interviews with the wrong people, etc. It gave me a very sour impression of the company. Both screeners (first and second) had no idea what they were looking for, and could not properly evaluate my resume and skills test - in fact by the time I'd gotten to the in-person interview, they said they were looking for particular skills that were not represented in the test nor screened in the previous two interviews. That could have been easily avoided in the previous interviews. Having poor, disorganized screenings are a bane for applicants, as it unnecessarily wastes their time and prevents them from spending that time on applying for and searching for opportunities that were a better fit. 3 interviews and a 3-day-long test (20 hours of time total) for someone who is not actually a fit for the position is an unnecessary and lengthy amount of time, and this company needs to have a better system of hiring quality applicants and, thus, evaluating applicants properly or it will continue to have a poor reputation in the research industry.