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

CHANCE

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’ median128,024.5 · 99%
B · citations per work7.8 · 4%
N · works29 · 29%
P · academics2 · 2%
Formula result0.731

From this institution

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

Works28
Citations216 over 27 of 28 works
Citations per counted work8.0
Weighted citations
Academics2
Departments2
First seen1993

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 2

DepartmentWorks
Columbia Political Science27
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 28

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2017Honesty and transparency are not enoughAndrew Gelman47
2014The AAA tranche of subprime scienceAndrew Gelman32
2012Ethics and statistics: Ethics and the statistical use of prior informationAndrew Gelman20
2013It’s too hard to publish criticisms and obtain data for replicationAndrew Gelman17
2012Statisticians: When we teach, we don’t practice what we preachAndrew Gelman14
2012Ethics and the statistical use of prior informationAndrew Gelman13
2012Statistics for sellers of cigarettesAndrew Gelman13
2013They’d rather be rigorous than rightAndrew Gelman12
2011Ethics and statistics: Open data and open methodsAndrew Gelman7
1993Poll Faulting,Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere6
2020Statistics as squid ink: How prominent researchers can get away with misrepresenting dataAndrew Gelman6
2020Evidence vs. truthAndrew Gelman5
2013Is it possible to be an ethicist without being mean to people?Andrew Gelman5
2015Disagreements about the strength of evidenceAndrew Gelman3
2002Voting, fairness, and political representation (with discussion)Andrew Gelman3
2007A catch-22 in assigning primary delegatesAndrew Gelman3
2015How is ethics like logistic regression? Ethics decisions, like statistical inferences, are informative only if they’re not too easy or too hardAndrew Gelman2
200455,000 residents desperately need your help!Andrew Gelman2
2013The war on dataAndrew Gelman1
2007Weight loss, self-experimentation, and web trials: A conversationAndrew Gelman1
2005Anova as a tool for structuring and understanding hierarchical models. Discussion of an article by C. E. McCullochAndrew Gelman1
2022How should scientific journals handle “Big if true” submissions?Andrew Gelman1
2010Voting by education in 2008Andrew Gelman1
2013Ethics and Statistics: The War on DataAndrew Gelman1
2021Ethical requirements of a research assistant who is concerned about the behavior of a supervisorAndrew Gelman0
2014The Commissar for Traffic presents the latest Five-Year PlanAndrew Gelman0
2012Ethics in medical trials: Where does statistics fit in?Andrew Gelman0
2012LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Responses to GelmanAndrew Gelman

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 27 of these 28 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.