A major benefit of working in public is that it invites immediate feedback (hopefully positive, constructive criticism) from anyone who might be reading it including pre-built audiences, whether this is through social media or in a classroom setting utilizing discussion or social annotation methods.

This feedback along the way may help to further find flaws in arguments, additional examples of patterns, or links to ideas one may not have considered by themselves.

Sadly, depending on your reader's context and understanding of your work, there are the attendant dangers of context collapse which may provide or elicit the wrong sorts of feedback, not to mention general abuse.

I have not taken a government class in over six years so this article was kind of difficult to read. As the results are stated, I understand how the conclusion came to be, but I do not understand what they mean. How can staffers have any influence on policies if they only have a limited understanding of consituent preferences? I know I'm not totally educated on this topic, but it seems like an important factor after reading this article.

Clements, J. C. (2020). Don’t be a prig in peer review. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0