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

Political Communication

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’ median9,741.0 · 77%
B · citations per work123.3 · 58%
N · works36 · 49%
P · academics19 · 43%
Formula result1.025

From this institution

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

Works32
Citations4,066 over 30 of 32 works
Citations per counted work135.5
Weighted citations
Academics17
Departments8
First seen1993

Works placed per year

32 of these 32 works carry a year; an undated work is in no year. Works placed, under these filters.

Departments publishing there 8

DepartmentWorks
Penn Political Science10
Princeton Politics8
Cornell Government4
Dartmouth Government3
Harvard Government3
Brown Political Science2
Columbia Political Science2
Yale 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 32

YearTitleAcademicsCitations
2003Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political KnowledgeMarkus Prior678
2016Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes?Matthew Levendusky678
2013Partisan Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward the Opposition,Matthew Levendusky413
2000Race and Public DeliberationTali Mendelberg345
2011The Friendly Media Phenomenon: A Cross-national Analysis of Cross-Cutting Exposure.Diana C. Mutz273
2014Are Poor Voters Indifferent to Whether Elected Leaders are Criminal or Corrupt? A Vignette Experiment in Rural IndiaDonald P. Green220
2019How Accurate Are Survey Responses on Social Media and Politics?Andrew M. Guess176
2013The Challenge of Measuring Media Exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and MutzMarkus Prior157
2015Moral Concerns and Policy Attitudes: Investigating the Influence of Elite Rhetoric.Jennifer Jerit129
2015How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation? The CaliforniaSpeaks Health Care Reform Experiment.Taeku Lee119
2001The Future of Political Communication Research.Diana C. Mutz88
2021Does Talking to the Other Side Reduce Inter-Party Hostility? Evidence From Three Studies.Peter John Loewen82
2001Weighted Content Analysis of Political AdvertisementsMarkus Prior80
2022How Does Local TV News Change Viewers’ Attitudes? The Case of Sinclair Broadcasting.Matthew Levendusky78
2014One Language, Two Effects: Partisanship and Responses to SpanishDaniel J. Hopkins73
2015The Role of Persuasion in Deliberative Opinion ChangeSean J. Westwood67
2013All Virtue is Relative: a Response to Prior.Diana C. Mutz62
2014Revisiting the Effects of Case Studies in the News.Diana C. Mutz53
2016News Photos and Support for Military ActionPeter John Loewen52
2021What’s Not to Like? Facebook Page Likes Reveal Limited Polarization in Lifestyle PreferencesAndrew M. Guess45
2014Field Experimental Designs for the Study of Media EffectsDonald P. Green · P. M. Aronow43
2022Issue Importance and the Correction of Misinformation.Jennifer Jerit42
2015Countering Implicit Appeals: Which Strategies Work?Tali Mendelberg31
2017Media Motivation and Elite Rhetoric in Comparative PerspectivePeter John Loewen30
2020The Effect of Associative Racial Cues in ElectionsMichele F. Margolis21
2017Status Politics and Rural Consciousness.Tali Mendelberg10
2025Depolarizing within the Comfort of Your Party: Experimental Evidence from Online WorkshopsRobert A. Blair10
2023Dimensions of Pandering Perceptions Among Hispanic Americans and Their Effect on Political Trust.Marques Zárate10
2017Media Motivation, Political Systems, and the Nature of Elite Rhetoric.Peter John Loewen1
2025Local Experience, National Media, and Misperceptions of the COVID-19 PandemicJennifer Hochschild0
2008Why are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When VotesGary King
1993Creating a political image: Shaping appearance and manipulating the voteDiana C. Mutz

Citations as counted, before any journal weight: 30 of these 32 works carry a count, and a work with no count is unknown, never a zero.