Trackademia

Welcome to Trackademia

The idea behind Trackademia is to build on existing academic databases like Google Scholar and OpenAlex so that you can trust the data and use it for whatever you want. That comes down to two things.

More data, and more ways to use it. We aggregate publication data from every major source into a single dataset and add information pulled from faculty CVs. Then we let you slice it however you want: choose which sources to build from, write your own formulas, weight journals, adjust for department size.

More accurate, and honest about where it isn’t. We focus on a smaller set of schools so we can verify everything carefully. Faculty lists come from department websites rather than being inferred from publication records, so we know who should be in the data before we go looking. When we can’t find data on someone, we record the gap instead of dropping them. Every number comes with a coverage rate you can check against ground truth.

Everything in Trackademia is built from seven units. AI merges duplicate records across sources and tags each publication so these categories hold up:

  • Publication — citation counts, authors, journal, peer review status, and more
  • Publication group — versions of the same work combined into one entity, such as a working paper and the article it became
  • Academic
  • Department
  • University
  • Field
  • Journal

There are two modes. In Database mode you browse the underlying records and filter by any of the seven units. In Analytics mode you get graphs and comparisons, and you switch views to compare two departments, compare one department against the average of the others, or see them all at once. Tabs let you focus on a particular level of the data.

Trackademia

Every graph on this site

Publications

  • Ranking Ranked table
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work
  • Works published per year Lines over years
    • Measure: Total, Mean per academic, Median per academic
    • Calendar year or years since PhD
    • In each year or cumulative
  • Citations received per year Lines over years
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work, Mean per academic, Median per academic
    • In each year or cumulative
  • Citation distribution Bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations
  • Citations by age of work Lines over years
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work
  • Publication type mix Ranked bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
  • Top venues Ranked bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications

Academicshere

Departments

  • Ranking Ranked table
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work, Mean per academic, Median per academic, Formula
  • Publications over time Lines over years
    • Measure: Total, Mean per academic, Median per academic, Formula
    • Calendar year or years since PhD
    • In each year or cumulative
  • Citations over time Lines over years
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations
    • Measure: Total, Mean per academic, Median per academic, Formula
    • In each year or cumulative
  • Makeup by tenure track Stacked bars
  • Output by rank Grouped bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work, Mean per academic, Median per academic, Formula
  • Academics ranked against academics Grouped bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
    • How many ranks (opens on 5)
  • Years to promotion Grouped bars
  • Journals used Stacked bars
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications

Journals

Fields

  • Ranking Ranked table
    • Value: Citations, Weighted citations, Publications
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work, Mean per academic, Median per academic
  • Departments by field Bars
    • Measure: Total, Mean per work, Median per work, Mean per academic, Median per academic
  • University rollup Ranked bars
  • Coverage by field Ranked bars

Trackademia

Search the whole site

Search a person, a department, a journal or the title of a work. A person’s name brings up their profile, their publications, their department and the journals they publish in.

Back to the list
Academic

Arthur Spirling

close

Academic

RankDistinguished
As of2025 · CV
DepartmentPrinceton Politics
UniversityPrinceton
FieldPolitical Science
Scholarprofile

Totals

Publications47
Citations4,007
h-index30 · Scholar
Citations per year in post222.6
Years in post18 from the CV positions

Coverage

Works with a count44 of 47
Share94%

Positions

Director of the Center for Statistics and Mac…2025–
Director of Graduate Studies of Politics, Pri…2024–2025
Class of 1987 Professor of Politics, Princeto…2023–
Professor of Politics and Data Science, New Y…2019–2023
Chair, Steering Committee, Moore-Sloan Data S…2018–2022
Deputy Director and Director of Graduate Stud…2016–2022
Associate Professor of Politics and Data Scie…2015–2019
Chair, Education Working Group, Moore-Sloan D…2015–2022
John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Socia…2012–2015
Director, Program on Text Research (IQSS), Ha…2009–2015
Assistant Professor, Department of Government…2008–2012

Top venues 23 venues

The 15 holding the most of these works; 8 more hold at least one.

Political Analysis8
American Journal of Political Science5
The Journal of Politics4
Journal of the American Statistical Associati…3
American Political Science Review2
British Journal of Political Science2
Electoral Studies2
Intelligence & National Security2
Legislative Studies Quarterly2
Conflict Management and Peace Science1
eCommons (Cornell University)1
Government and Opposition1
Journal of Conflict Resolution1
Journal of Historical Political Economy1
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Seri…1

Collaborators 3 collaborators

Over every shown department of this field, not only the ones the filters select. 3 of these 47 works are held by another academic here; the column adds to more than that, because a work three of them hold is a shared work with each of the other two.

CollaboratorDepartmentShared works
Melissa SchwartzbergPrinceton Politics1
Peter John LoewenCornell Government1
William R. HobbsCornell Government1

Publications per year

Works this academic published in each year, by the year each work appeared; an undated work is in no year, and a work two colleagues wrote counts for each of them. The publication type, works filters decide which works are here at all.

Citations per year

Citations received in each year, from this academic’s verified Scholar profile, which counts every citation to everything they ever wrote: no publication filter reaches this line - not the publication types, not the works switch, not the year window on publication - and no weight either. It is a profile total, so it does not match the works listed below.

Publications 47 works

Every work these filters select, most cited first and the works with no count at the end: a work nobody has a figure for is unknown, never a zero to be ranked among the works that have one, and it prints an em dash. Each figure is that work’s own citations - Scholar’s count where there is one, else OpenAlex’s - and is not weighted.

YearTitleVenuePublication typeCitations
2018Text Preprocessing For Unsupervised Learning: Why It Matters, When It Misleads, And What To Do About ItPolitical Analysisarticle913
2022Word Embeddings: What works, what doesn’t, and how to tell the difference for applied researchThe Journal of Politicsarticle395
2023Open generative AI models are a way forward for scienceNaturearticle206
2011U.S. Treaty Making with American Indians: Institutional Change and Relative Power, 1784–1911American Journal of Political Sciencearticle194
2007UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of CommonsPolitical Analysisarticle192
2018Classification Accuracy as a Substantive Quantity of Interest: Measuring Polarization in Westminster SystemsPolitical Analysisarticle185
2019Measuring and Explaining Political Sophistication through Textual ComplexityAmerican Journal of Political Sciencearticle182
2011Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster DemocraciesAmerican Political Science Reviewarticle180
2023Embedding Regression: Models for Context-Specific Description and InferenceAmerican Political Science Reviewarticle159
2015Democratization and Linguistic Complexity: The Effect of Franchise Extension on Parliamentary Discourse, 1832–1915The Journal of Politicsarticle125
2017Incumbency Effects and the Strength of Party Preferences: Evidence from Multiparty Elections in the United KingdomThe Journal of Politicsarticle105
2010Identifying Intraparty Voting Blocs in the U.K. House of CommonsJournal of the American Statistical Associationarticle99
2023Using proprietary language models in academic research requires explicit justificationNature Computational Sciencearticle93
2014Electoral Security as a Determinant of Legislator Activity, 1832–1918: New Data and Methods for Analyzing British Political DevelopmentLegislative Studies Quarterlyarticle87
2014Ministerial Responsiveness in Westminster Systems: Institutional Choices and House of Commons Debate, 1832–1915American Journal of Political Sciencearticle78
2024Large Language Models Can Argue in Convincing Ways About Politics, But Humans Dislike AI Authors: implications for GovernancePolitical Sciencearticle75
2016Party Cohesion in Westminster Systems: Inducements, Replacement and Discipline in the House of Commons, 1836–1910British Journal of Political Sciencearticle71
2014The Shadow Cabinet in Westminster Systems Modeling Opposition Agenda-Setting using House of Commons Speeches, 1832{1915British Journal of Political Sciencearticle64
2011Testing the power of arguments in referendums: A Bradley–Terry approachElectoral Studiesarticle59
2003None of the Above: The UK House of Commons votes on reforming the House of LordsUCL Discovery (University College London)article55
2007Bayesian Approaches for Limited Dependent Variable Change Point ProblemsPolitical Analysisarticle49
2006The Rights and Wrongs of Roll CallsGovernment and Oppositionarticle41
2025What Good is a Regression? Inference to the Best Explanation and the Practice of Political Science ResearchThe Journal of Politicsarticle40
2010Scaling the Critics: Uncovering the Latent Dimensions of Movie Criticism With an Item Response ApproachJournal of the American Statistical Associationarticle36
2020Diplomatic documents data for international relations: the Freedom of Information Archive DatabaseConflict Management and Peace Sciencearticle34
2014Guarding the Guardians Legislative Self-Policing and Electoral Corruption in Victorian BritainQuarterly Journal of Political Sciencearticle33
2006tapiR and The Public Whip: Resources for Westminster Votingarticle33
2021Turning History into Data: Data Collection, Measurement, and Inference in HPEJournal of Historical Political Economyarticle31
2015Estimating the Severity of the WikiLeaks US Diplomatic Cables DisclosurePolitical Analysisarticle26
2007‘Turning Points’ in Iraq: Reversible Jump Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Political ScienceThe American Statisticianarticle23
2026A reporting checklist for large language models in behavioural scienceNature Human Behaviourarticle19
2024Multilanguage Word Embeddings For Social Science: Estimation, Inference and Validation Resources for 157 LanguagesPolitical Analysisarticle18
2021New evidence and new methods for analyzing the Iranian revolution as an intelligence failureIntelligence & National Securityarticle17
2014British Political Development: A Research Agenda. Introduction to the Special IssueLegislative Studies Quarterlyarticle17
2020A General Model of Author “Style” with Application to the UK House of Commons, 1935–2018Political Analysisarticle16
2015Modeling ‘Effectiveness’ in International RelationsJournal of Conflict Resolutionarticle15
2007Under the Influence? Intellectual Exchange in Political SciencePS Political Science & Politicsarticle13
2007Rebels with a Cause? Legislative Activity and the Personal Vote in Britain, 1997{2005article10
2011Radical Moderation: Recapturing Power in Two‐Party Parliamentary SystemsAmerican Journal of Political Sciencearticle8
2025Measuring Distances in High Dimensional Spaces Why Average Group Vector Comparisons Exhibit Bias, And What to Do About itPolitical Analysisarticle7
2025Peers, Equals, and Jurors: New Data and Methods on the Role of Equality in Leveller Thought.American Journal of Political Sciencearticle3
2014Dimensions of Diplomacy What the Wikileaks Cables can tell us about Information and Privacy in International Relationsarticle1
2015Response to “Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals” by Varin, C, Cattelan, M and Firth, D.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statisti…article0
2008Testing the Power of Arguments in Political Science A Bradley-Terry Approach∗Electoral Studiesarticle0
2021Understanding Agency Incentives in Intelligence Failures: A Text-as-Data Analysis of the Iranian RevolutionIntelligence & National Securityarticle
2012Comment [on “Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech”]eCommons (Cornell University)article
Identifying Intra-Party Voting Blocs in the UK House of CommonsJournal of the American Statistical Associationarticle