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

Research & Politics

close

Citation weight

Tierunranked
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’ median4,964.0 · 33%
B · citations per work76.3 · 43%
N · works37 · 51%
P · academics23 · 56%
Formula result0.648

From this institution

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

Works28
Citations587 over 25 of 28 works
Citations per counted work23.5
Weighted citations
Academics15
Departments7
First seen2017

Works placed per year

28 of these 28 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 7

DepartmentWorks
Dartmouth Government8
Columbia Political Science7
Cornell Government6
Penn Political Science4
Brown Political Science2
Yale Political Science2
Princeton Politics1

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

Works placed there 28

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2017Does newspaper coverage influence or reflect public perceptions of the economy?Daniel J. Hopkins · Eunji Kim106
2023On the Reliability of Published Findings using the Regression Discontinuity Design in Political ScienceP. M. Aronow68
2022Does Digital Advertising Affect Vote Choice? Evidence from a Randomized Field ExperimentDonald P. Green67
2020How Partisanship and Sexism Influences Voters’ Reactions to #MeToo Scandals.Mia Costa60
2024Promoting Reproducibility and Replicability in Political ScienceDonald P. Green · Yamil Ricardo Velez42
2017Warring from the Virtual to the Real: Assessing the Public’s Threshold for War on Cyber SecuritySarah E. Kreps34
2018Visual Heuristics for Marginal Effects PlotsThomas B. Pepinsky33
2019Counting the Pinocchios: The Effect of Summary Fact-Checking Data on Perceived Accuracy and Favorability of PoliticiansBrendan Nyhan28
2019Do Electronic Devices in Face-to-Face Interviews Change Survey Behavior? Evidence from a Developing CountrySarah Bush26
2022Multilateralism and Public Support for Drone StrikesSarah E. Kreps18
2022Participation Incentives in an Elite Survey of International Non-Profit Professionals.Jennifer Hadden · Sarah Bush18
2021The Limited Effects of Partisan and Consensus Messaging in Correcting Science MisperceptionsBrendan Nyhan17
2020Selling International Law Enforcement: Elite Justifications and Public Values.Melissa Lee16
2018Revisiting White Backlash: Does Race Affect Death Penalty Opinion?Brendan Nyhan14
2023Vigilantism and Institutions: Understanding Attitudes toward Lynching in BrazilDavid Skarbek10
2017Moving forward with time series analysisPeter K. Enns9
2024How the Relationship Between Education and Antisemitism Varies Between CountriesBrendan Nyhan5
2023Is That Ethical? An Exploration of Political Scientists’ Views on Research Ethics.Mia Costa4
2022ExposuretoStateViolence and Substance UseElizabeth R. Nugent4
2018Nothing to Fear? Anxiety, Numeracy, and Demographic Perceptions.Yamil Ricardo Velez4
2021Republicans are More Optimistic about Economic Mobility, But No Less AccurateBrendan Nyhan1
2026Reducing Affective Polarization Does Not Affect False News Sharing or Truth DiscernmentBrendan Nyhan1
2025Revisiting Name Recognition and Candidate Support: Experimental Tests of the Mere Exposure HypothesisDonald P. Green1
2024Discovering Optimal Ballot Wording Using Adaptive Survey DesignDonald P. Green1
2024Gnostic Notes on Temporal ValidityP. M. Aronow0
2025Does digital advertising affect vote choice? Evidence from a randomized field experiment (vol 9, 10.1177/20531680221076901, 2022)Donald P. Green
2025Moving forward with time series analysis (vol. 4, 10.1177/2053168017732231, 2017)Peter K. Enns
2025Don't jettison the general error correction model just yet: A practical guide to avoiding spurious regression with the GECM (vol 3, 205316801664334, 2016)Peter K. Enns

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 25 of these 28 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.