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

Electoral Studies

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’ median6,179.0 · 49%
B · citations per work140.1 · 66%
N · works45 · 64%
P · academics31 · 72%
Formula result0.906

From this institution

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

Works45
Citations6,023 over 43 of 45 works
Citations per counted work140.1
Weighted citations
Academics31
Departments7
First seen1991

Works placed per year

45 of these 45 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 7

DepartmentWorks
Columbia Political Science9
Princeton Politics9
Yale Political Science9
Cornell Government6
Dartmouth Government6
Harvard Government5
Penn Political Science5

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

Works placed there 45

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
1995Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral FormulasJohn Michael Carey3,877
2013The Timing and Targeting of Repression in Authoritarian ElectionsJennifer Gandhi174
2014The Political Consequences of Uninformed VotersMichele F. Margolis171
2014Communist Socialization and Post-Communist Economic and Political AttitudesGrigore Pop-Eleches153
2007The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Primary Elections.James M. Snyder, Jr. · Shigeo Hirano · Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere132
2018An exploration of Donald Trump’s allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 General ElectionSean J. Westwood114
2017Economic Performance and Incumbents’ Support in Latin AmericaMaria Victoria Murillo113
2018Do Electoral Handouts Affect Voting Behavior?Leonard Wantchekon111
2017Incumbency Advantage and Candidate Characteristics in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems: Evidence from IndonesiaThomas B. Pepinsky96
2003Partisan Mail and Voter Turnout: Results from Randomized Field ExperimentsAlan S. Gerber · Donald P. Green90
2017Social Pressure and Voting: A Field Experiment Conducted in a High-Salience ElectionDonald P. Green80
2014Electoral Consequences of Declining Participation: A Natural Experiment in AustriaJeremy Ferwerda78
2015The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample SurveysStephen Daniel Ansolabehere72
2020After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American DemocracyCarlo Prato69
2017Local Candidates and Voter Mobilization: Evidence from Historical Two-Round Elections in NorwayDaniel M. Smith66
2016The Effects of Lawn Signs on Vote Outcomes: Results from Four Randomized Field ExperimentsDonald P. Green63
2011Testing the power of arguments in referendums: A Bradley–Terry approachArthur Spirling · Peter John Loewen59
2003The effects of partisan direct mail on voter turnoutAlan S. Gerber · Donald P. Green57
2010Testing Proximity Versus Directional Voting Using ExperimentsDean Lacy56
2017Why Don't People Vote in U.S. Primary Elections? Assessing Theoretical Explanations for Reduced ParticipationAlan S. Gerber · Gregory Alain Huber45
2018Measuring Issue-Salience in Voters’ PreferencesStephen Daniel Ansolabehere44
2012Economic Voting in Multi-tiered PolitiesDidac Queralt34
2021The electoral consequences of anti-Muslim prejudiceLafleur Stephens-Dougan32
1991Partisan Voting in the Spanish 1986 NATO Referendum: An Ecological AnalysisCarles Boix26
2015Beauty Contests and Strategic Inference: A Behavioural Foundation for Strategic Voting.Peter John Loewen23
2014You Have to Pay to Play: Candidate and Party Responses to the High Cost of Elections in JapanDaniel M. Smith22
2022Shoring up Power: Electoral Reform and the Consolidation of Authoritarian RuleJennifer Gandhi19
2015Nationalism and Ethnic Heterogeneity: The Importance of Local Context for Nationalist Party Vote Choice.Peter John Loewen18
2021Communicating safety precautions can help maintain in-person voter turnout during a pandemicPeter John Loewen17
2021Evaluations of candidates' non- policy characteristics from issue positions: Evidence of valence spilloverAlan S. Gerber · Gregory Alain Huber14
2020Campaign Styles: Persistency in Campaign Resource AllocationHye Young You14
1994The 1993 Argentine ElectionsMaria Victoria Murillo14
2009Voter responses to Challenger Opportunity CostsGregory Alain Huber12
2016Turnout and Weather Disruptions: Survey Evidence from the 2012 Presidential Elections in the Aftermath of Hurricane SandyRobert Y. Shapiro12
2010The presidential election in Romania in 2009Grigore Pop-Eleches10
2022Does the Monetary Cost of Abstaining Increase Turnout? Causal Evidence from Peru.Guadalupe Tuñón9
2009Exploring the Micro-Dynamics of Political Participation: Unpacking Trends in Black and White Activism Over TimeDaniel Gillion8
1999Many Publications, but Still No EvidenceGary King7
2025Losing Predicts Perceptions That Elections Were Decided by Fraud, but Margin of Loss and Candidate Race Do NotBrendan Nyhan6
2026Getting to Know Her: Information and Gender Bias in Preferential Voting SystemsDaniel M. Smith5
2026How Do Underrepresented Voters View Electoral System Trade-Offs?Charles T. Mcclean1
2025Self-Interest and Voter Support for Defund the PoliceMarcel F. Roman0
2008Testing the Power of Arguments in Political Science A Bradley-Terry Approach∗Arthur Spirling0
1995GARY W. Cox AND FRANCIS ROSENBLUTHJohn Michael Carey
2012Testing the Power of Arguments with a Bradley-Terry Model: An Application to Electoral Reform.Peter John Loewen

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 43 of these 45 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.