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.

Back to the list
Journal

Statistical Science

close

Citation weight

TierA*
Weight in force
Weightingoff

Weight inputs

Each figure with its percentile among the ranked journals. A is the median, over the academics with a work here, of that academic’s citations to the works this site counts for them - never a Google Scholar profile total. Over every academic of this field, all years, whatever the filters select.

A · academics’ median59,831.0 · 98%
B · citations per work1,182.3 · 100%
N · works29 · 29%
P · academics5 · 8%
Formula result1.375

From this institution

Under these filters. A work with no citation count is unknown here, never a zero.

Works29
Citations29,557 over 25 of 29 works
Citations per counted work1,182.3
Weighted citations
Academics5
Departments4
First seen1992

Works placed per year

29 of these 29 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 4

DepartmentWorks
Columbia Political Science22
Harvard Government5
Princeton Politics1
Yale Political Science1

A work held by two departments counts once in each, so these add up to more than the works above.

Works placed there 29

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
1992Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion and rejoinder)Andrew Gelman23,227
2010Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation EffectsKosuke Imai2,697
1998Simulating normalizing constants: From importance sampling to bridge sampling to path samplingAndrew Gelman1,465
2007Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression ModelingAndrew Gelman1,002
2009The Essential Role of Pair Matching in Cluster-Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance EvaluationGary King · Kosuke Imai433
2002The mathematics and statistics of voting powerAndrew Gelman176
2023Principal Fairness for Human and Algorithmic Decision-MakingKosuke Imai84
1999Analysis of local decisions using hierarchical modeling, applied to home radon measurement and remediation (with disussion)Andrew Gelman67
2007Discussion of “Bayesian checking of the second levels of hierarchical models,” by M. J. Bayarri and M. E. CastellanosAndrew Gelman67
2024Past, present, and future of software for Bayesian inferenceAndrew Gelman56
2010Bayesian statistics then and nowAndrew Gelman47
2005Comment: Fuzzy and Bayesian p-Values and u-ValuesAndrew Gelman39
2001Using conditional distributions for missing-data imputation. Discussion of “Conditionally specified distributions” by B. Arnold et al.Andrew Gelman38
2014How Bayesian analysis cracked the red-state, blue-state problemAndrew Gelman29
1992[Practical Markov Chain Monte Carlo]: Rejoinder: Replication without ContritionAndrew Gelman28
2001[Conditionally specified distributions: An introduction]: commentAndrew Gelman27
2020Laplace’s Theories of Cognitive Illusions, Heuristics and BiasesAndrew Gelman22
2009Matched Pairs and the Future of Cluster-Randomized Experiments: A RejoinderGary King · Kosuke Imai17
2009Rejoinder: Matched Pairs and the Future of Cluster-Randomized ExperimentsGary King16
2011Bayesian statistical pragmatismAndrew Gelman10
1993Assessing uncertainty in backprojection. Discussion of “Backcalculation of HIV infection rates,” by P. Bacchetti, M. R. Segal, and N. P. JewellAndrew Gelman3
2020Laplace’s theories of cognitive illusions, heuristics, and biases (with discussion and rejoinder)Andrew Gelman3
2017Understanding Ding’s Apparent ParadoxP. M. Aronow2
2024Comment: Protocols for Observational Studies: An Application to Regression Discontinuity DesignsRocío Titiunik1
2007Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling (with discussion and rejoinder)Andrew Gelman1
2010Bayesian statistics then and now. Discussion of “The future of indirect evidence,” by Bradley EfronAndrew Gelman
2006Fuzzy and Bayesian p-values and u-values. Discussion of “Fuzzy and randomized confidence intervals and p-values,” by C. Geyer and G. MeedenAndrew Gelman
2009Bayes, Jeffreys, prior distributions, and the philosophy of statistics. Discussion of “Harold Jeffreys’ Theory of Probability revisited,” by Christian Robert, Nicolas Chopin, and Judith RousseauAndrew Gelman
1999In Praise of Decision Analysis in Environmental Health: RejoinderAndrew Gelman

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 25 of these 29 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.