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

Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy

close

Citation weight

TierB
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’ median9,150.0 · 76%
B · citations per work75.5 · 42%
N · works22 · 11%
P · academics13 · 27%
Formula result0.915

From this institution

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

Works21
Citations1,585 over 20 of 21 works
Citations per counted work79.2
Weighted citations
Academics13
Departments5
First seen2001

Works placed per year

21 of these 21 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 5

DepartmentWorks
Harvard Government10
Penn Political Science5
Columbia Political Science4
Brown Political Science1
Dartmouth Government1

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

Works placed there 21

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2002The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000James M. Snyder, Jr. · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere669
2007The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. PerryGary King283
2004Did Firms Profit From Soft Money?James M. Snyder, Jr. · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere140
2014The Effects of Voter ID Notification on Voter Turnout: Results from a Large-Scale Field ExperimentDonald P. Green102
2010If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive While Expanding Enfranchisement?Jennifer Hochschild70
2011Convenience Voting Can Affect Election OutcomesMarc Meredith55
2013The Effects of Redistricting on IncumbentsJames M. Snyder, Jr. · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere41
2015Waiting to VoteStephen Daniel Ansolabehere39
2001Voting Machines, Race, and Equal Protection.Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere37
2022Trumped by Trump? Public Support for Vote By Mail Voting in Response to the Covid-19 PandemicJohn S. Lapinski30
2010Partisanship, Public Opinion, and RedistrictingStephen Daniel Ansolabehere25
2012Does Public Financing Chill Political Speech? Exploiting a Court Injunction as a Natural ExperimentRyan D. Enos22
2023Who Cures Ballots: Evidence from North Carolina's 2020 General ElectionMarc Meredith17
2012The Effect of Prepaid Postage on Voter Turnout: A Cautionary Tale for Election AdministratorsAllison Carnegie · Donald P. Green14
2024Who are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm ElectionsSean J. Westwood13
2022Whose Vote is Lost by Mail: Evidence from Philadelphia in the 2020 General ElectionDaniel J. Hopkins · Marc Meredith11
2016Do Public Matching Funds and Tax Credits Encourage Political Contributions? Evidence from Three Field Experiments Using Nonpartisan MessagesDonald P. Green9
2015A Brief Yet Practical Guide to Reforming U.S. Voter RegistrationStephen Daniel Ansolabehere7
2008Can Rules Stop a Fiscal Train Wreck?Eric M. Patashnik1
2006A Strategic Dominance Argument for Retaining Section 5 of the VRA.Sharyn O’Halloran0
2024Election Law Journal Campaign Finance RoundtableMarc Meredith

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 20 of these 21 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.