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

Business and 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’ median2,258.0 · —
B · citations per work87.6 · —
N · works7 · —
P · academics5 · —
Formula result
Below the thresholdfewer than 20 works: unranked, and weighs 1

From this institution

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

Works7
Citations613 over 7 of 7 works
Citations per counted work87.6
Weighted citations
Academics5
Departments3
First seen2000

Works placed per year

7 of these 7 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 3

DepartmentWorks
Harvard Government4
Columbia 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 7

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2002Are PAC Contributions and Lobbying Linked? New Evidence from the 1995 Lobby Disclosure ActJames M. Snyder, Jr. · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere418
2019Presence and Influence in Lobbying: Evidence from Dodd-Frank RulemakingHye Young You69
2000Campaign Warchests in Congressional ElectionsJames M. Snyder, Jr.49
2015Politically Connected Polluters under SmogYuhua Wang30
2000Campaign War Chests and Congressional Elections,James M. Snyder, Jr. · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere23
2021Who’s Afraid of Sunlight? Explaining Opposition to Transparency in Economic DevelopmentCalvin Thrall21
2024Stakeholder Cues, National Origin, and Public Opinion Towards Firms: Evidence in the Context of the First Bank in an American Indian NationCalvin Thrall3

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 7 of these 7 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.