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

Science Advances

close

Citation weight

TierB
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’ median5,744.0 · 36%
B · citations per work206.4 · 80%
N · works25 · 18%
P · academics24 · 58%
Formula result0.892

From this institution

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

Works14
Citations655 over 13 of 14 works
Citations per counted work50.4
Weighted citations
Academics14
Departments6
First seen2022

Works placed per year

14 of these 14 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 6

DepartmentWorks
Dartmouth Government4
Penn Political Science4
Harvard Government3
Princeton Politics2
Yale Political Science2
Columbia 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 14

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2022News credibility labels have limited but uneven effects on news diet quality and fail to reduce misperceptionsAndrew M. Guess141
2023Subscriptions and External Links Help Drive Resentful Users to Alternative and Extremist YouTube VideosBrendan Nyhan137
2022Addressing Census data problems in race imputation via fully Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding and name supplementsKosuke Imai78
2024Has the Supreme Court Become Just Another Political Branch? Public Perceptions of Court Approval and Legitimacy in a Post-Dobbs WorldMatthew Levendusky · Michele F. Margolis53
2024Persistent Polarization: The Unexpected Durability of Political Animosity Around US ElectionsSean J. Westwood46
2022Identifying Legitimacy: Experimental Evidence on Compliance with AuthorityGregory Alain Huber45
2024Evaluating Bias and Noise Induced by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Privacy Protection MethodsKosuke Imai · Shiro Kuriwaki41
2022Effects of changes in perceived discrimination during BLM on the 2020 presidential electionDiana C. Mutz35
2023Toward a taxonomy of trust for probabilistic machine learningAndrew Gelman26
2025Prebunking and Credible Sources Corrections Increase Election Credibility: Evidence from the U.S. and BrazilBrendan Nyhan21
2023Can low-cost, scalable, online intervention increase youth informed political participation in electoral authoritarian contexts?Guy Grossman20
2026Which Immigrants do Citizens Prefer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 100 Conjoint ExperimentsMarcel F. Roman · Mashail Malik9
2024Measuring Lost Votes by MailMarc Meredith3
2026Untrustworthy sources on Facebook and Instagram in 2020: Concentrated exposure but no attitudinal effectsAndrew M. Guess · Brendan Nyhan

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 13 of these 14 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.