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

Critical Review

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’ median5,757.0 · 37%
B · citations per work27.9 · 17%
N · works39 · 53%
P · academics26 · 62%
Formula result0.467

From this institution

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

Works37
Citations906 over 32 of 37 works
Citations per counted work28.3
Weighted citations
Academics24
Departments7
First seen1990

Works placed per year

37 of these 37 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 7

DepartmentWorks
Yale Political Science9
Columbia Political Science8
Dartmouth Government8
Harvard Government5
Brown Political Science4
Princeton Politics3
Penn Political Science2

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

Works placed there 37

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2008Do the Facts Speak for Themselves? Partisan Disagreement as a Challenge to Democratic CompetenceRobert Y. Shapiro180
1995Pathologies revisited: Reflections on our criticsDonald P. Green · Ian Shapiro79
2014Yes We Can (Make It Up On Volume): Reply to Critics.Hélène Landemore74
2009COPING WITH THE BLACK SWAN: THE UNSETTLING WORLD OF NASSIM TALEBMark McGann Blyth68
2010Can Deliberative Democracy Be Partisan?Russell Muirhead62
2016Speaking Truth to Conspiracy: Partisanship and TrustRussell Muirhead60
2016Roundtable on Epistemic Democracy and Its CriticsHélène Landemore · Nadia Urbinati40
1998Public Opinion, Elites, and DemocracyRobert Y. Shapiro40
2014The Politics of Getting It RightRussell Muirhead39
2014Are the economic liberties basic?Alan Patten36
2013On Minimal Deliberation, Partisan Activism, and Teaching People How to DisagreeHélène Landemore30
1997Hayek’s Attack on Social JusticeDavid C. Johnston27
2018From the Folk Theory to Symbolic Politics: Toward A More Realistic Understanding Of Voter Behavior.Tali Mendelberg25
2004The Great Transformation in Understanding Polanyi: A Response to Hejeebu and McCloskeyMark McGann Blyth21
2014Roundtable on political epistemologyHélène Landemore16
2013Reflections on Hearing the Other Side, in Theory and in Practice.Diana C. Mutz16
2008Ideology and DystopiaHélène Landemore15
1990J.G.A. Pocock’s republicanism and political theory: A critique and reinterpretationIan Shapiro14
2014Welcome to the Dark Side: A Classical Liberal Argument for Economic DemocracyAlexander Hirschman Gourevitch14
2006The Rationalizing Public?Gregory J. Wawro12
2012Should “Systems Thinkers” Accept the Limits on Political Forecasting or Push the LimitsMichael Horowitz9
2014Free Market MoralsJames Bernard Murphy7
2007The Idea of an Un-­‐Rhetorical PresidencyBryan Garsten7
1998Is the Idea of Social Justice Meaningful?David C. Johnston6
2007The Battle for Liberalism: Confronting the Legacy of TheocracyLucas Swaine4
2021The Pluralist ConstitutionSonu Bedi2
2016The Epistemic Basis for Political Opposition: Rejoinder to MinRussell Muirhead2
2024Defining Rationality in Security Studies: Expected Utility, Theory-Driven Reasoning, and the Vietnam WarJeffrey A. Friedman1
2025Beyond TechnocracyPeter A. Hall0
2025How Political Psychologists ThinkJoshua David Kertzer0
2024Living in the Shadows: Debating Meaning in a Post-Religious WorldMichael Eric ROSEN0
2024Constitutional Fallacies.Melissa Schwartzberg0
2007The Leaning Tower of PISA: Fundamental Problems in Ignorance-Based Theories of State AutonomyDaniel Paul Carpenter
2007The leaning tower of “pisa”: Public ignorance, issue publics, and state autonomy: Reply to DeCanioDaniel Paul Carpenter
2012SYSTEM EFFECTSAND THE PROBLEM OF PREDICTIONHélène Landemore
2013Hearing the Other Side: It Starts at the TopRobert Y. Shapiro
2010What if Most Swans are Black? The Unsettling World of Nassim TalebMark McGann Blyth

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 32 of these 37 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.