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

Nature Human Behaviour

close

Citation weight

TierA
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’ median14,427.0 · 91%
B · citations per work335.7 · 92%
N · works28 · 26%
P · academics21 · 50%
Formula result1.301

From this institution

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

Works26
Citations8,679 over 24 of 26 works
Citations per counted work361.6
Weighted citations
Academics21
Departments8
First seen2017

Works placed per year

25 of these 26 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 8

DepartmentWorks
Dartmouth Government7
Princeton Politics6
Columbia Political Science5
Harvard Government5
Cornell Government4
Yale Political Science3
Brown Political Science2
Penn 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 26

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2018Redefine Statistical SignificanceBrendan Nyhan · Donald P. Green · Dustin Tingley · Kosuke Imai3,687
2020Exposure to Untrustworthy Websites in the 2016 U.S. ElectionAndrew M. Guess · Brendan Nyhan2,369
2021Affective Polarization, Local Contexts, and Public Opinion in America.Matthew Levendusky604
2021The Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million VotersRyan D. Enos440
2024Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformationAndrew M. Guess302
2021Anti-intellectualism and the mass public’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Peter John Loewen209
2020A Consensus-based Transparency ChecklistAndrew Gelman · Brendan Nyhan · Donald P. Green206
2022The ephemeral e↵ects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Canada.Andrew M. Guess · Brendan Nyhan · John Michael Carey · Peter John Loewen176
2020Population-scale Longitudinal Mapping of COVID-19 Symptoms, Behaviour and TestingGary King149
2020Discussion points for Bayesian inferenceAndrew Gelman81
2023Little Evidence That Military Policing Reduces Crime or Improves Human SecurityRobert A. Blair79
2024Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rightsSean J. Westwood75
2022Political Audience Diversity and News Reliability in Algorithmic RankingBrendan Nyhan73
2017Connective Recovery in Social Networks After the Death of a Friend.William R. Hobbs64
2025The impact of advanced AI systems on democracyHélène Landemore45
2023Empowering Women Facing Gender-Based Violence amid COVID-19 Through Media Cam- paignsElizabeth Parker-Magyar36
2026A reporting checklist for large language models in behavioural scienceArthur Spirling19
2023Seeing racial avoidance on New York City streetsMelissa Lee Sands16
2019Experimental Evidence for a Pure Collaboration EffectAlan S. Gerber13
9 2017. Redefine statistical significanceDonald P. Green13
2021Research on registered report researchAndrew Gelman11
2021Re-evaluating Police Militarization.Jonathan Mummolo9
2026How Deceptive Online Networks Reached Millions in the US 2020 ElectionsAndrew M. Guess · Brendan Nyhan3
2019Making America LessROSE McDERMOTT0
2025The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters (vol 5, pg 998, 2021)Ryan D. Enos
2026Improving computational reproducibility in the social sciencesGary King

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 24 of these 26 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.