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

Review of International Studies

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’ median17,147.0 · —
B · citations per work259.0 · —
N · works11 · —
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.

Works10
Citations2,331 over 9 of 10 works
Citations per counted work259.0
Weighted citations
Academics5
Departments4
First seen1991

Works placed per year

10 of these 10 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 4

DepartmentWorks
Princeton Politics5
Dartmouth Government3
Columbia Political Science1
Harvard Government1

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

Works placed there 10

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
1991The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations: A CritiqueHelen V. Milner1,051
1999The Nature and Sources of Liberal International OrderG. John Ikenberry443
2018Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status-SeekingWilliam C. Wohlforth379
1999Strategic Culture Revisited: Reply to Colin GrayAlastair Iain Johnston202
2001American power and the empire of capitalist democracyG. John Ikenberry110
2001The Russian-Soviet Empires, 1400-2000: A Test of NeorealismWilliam C. Wohlforth62
1991Soviet Reform and the End of the Cold War: Explaining Large-Scale Historical ChangeG. John Ikenberry44
2000Ideology and the Cold WarWilliam C. Wohlforth20
2017Buffer Zones: Anachronism, Power Vacuum, or Confidence Builder?Jack L. Snyder20
2004Hegemony, Empire, and American PowerG. John Ikenberry

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 9 of these 10 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.