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

Sociological Methods & Research

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’ median59,831.0 · —
B · citations per work151.0 · —
N · works14 · —
P · academics7 · —
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.

Works14
Citations1,963 over 13 of 14 works
Citations per counted work151.0
Weighted citations
Academics7
Departments4
First seen1989

Works placed per year

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

Departments publishing there 4

DepartmentWorks
Harvard Government8
Columbia Political Science4
Yale Political Science3
Cornell Government1

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
2007An Introduction to the Dataverse Network as an Infrastructure for Data SharingGary King432
2015A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: OverviewGary King273
2008Publication Bias in Empirical Sociological Research: Do Arbitrary Significance Levels Distort Published Results?Alan S. Gerber250
1999Binomial-Beta Hierarchical Models for Ecological InferenceGary King201
2012A General Method for Detecting Interference Between Units in Randomized ExperimentsP. M. Aronow177
1989A Seemingly Unrelated Poisson Regression ModelGary King155
2004What to do When Your Hessian is Not Invertible: Alternatives to Model Respecification in Nonlinear EstimationGary King106
2015A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Details and ExtensionsGary King78
1998The Record of American Democracy, 1984–1990Gary King75
2014When do stories work? Evidence and illustration in the social sciencesAndrew Gelman73
2010A Cautionary Note on the Use of Matching to Estimate Causal Effects: An Empirical Example Comparing Matching Estimates to an Experimental BenchmarkAlan S. Gerber · Donald P. Green70
2020Sensitive Survey Questions with Auxiliary InformationBryn Rosenfeld · Kosuke Imai43
1999Evaluating and using statistical methods in the social sciences. Discussion of “A critique of the Bayesian information criterion,” by D. WeakliemAndrew Gelman30
Kevin Arceneaux, Alan S. Gerber 2, andDonald P. Green

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.