Some international relations (IR) scholars lament the divide that exists between the academic community and the policy community. Others celebrate it. In this article, we test a core proposition advanced by advocates of bridging the policy-academy divide: that direct engagement in the policy-making process will make international relations scholars more adept at designing, undertaking, and communicating research in ways that are useful and relevant to policymakers. Using a difference-in-differences estimation strategy, we evaluate whether and to what extent direct exposure to the policy-making process influences how IR scholars select publication outlets. We define and evaluate policy-making exposure in two ways: periods of public service in which faculty members temporarily vacate their university positions to work for governments or intergovernmental organizations; and instances in which faculty members undertake substantial consulting assignments for government agencies and intergovernmental organizations. Our findings suggest that Òin-and-outersÓÑfaculty members who temporarily leave the ivory tower to accept policy positionsÑreturn to the academy with new perspectives and publication priorities. By contrast, we find no policy-making exposure effect among Òmoonlighters.Ó Our results suggest that IR scholars are no more likely to publish in policy journals after doing part-time consulting work for governments and IOs.