I had heard that all scientists (those who had publications on some journals) were graded according to some of the criteria.
Is there really such thing?
If yes, can anyone supple a link here showing the allocations of the scientists?
There are different ways of trying to determine the impact of publications. The big boy on the block is ISI Web of Knowledge. They have a formula fro calculating impact factors used by most publications. The same can be done for individual scientists, but I think you have to pay for that. The website does list the number of times your articles have been cited - the raw data for calculating impact.
(A subscription is required to access)
Google scholar has some similar data for free (citations) but they are incomplete with many duplications, but it's enough for a rough idea of how much attention a paper is getting:
There are others that have used different formulas for calculating impact to rank scientists and journals. For instance:
Another trend, mostly among open access journals, has been to list the number of downloads articles get. This is usually done for the most popular articles, not to offend those that have been overlooked. What is quite interesting is the hugh gap between how often someone downloads a PDF and how often the paper is citied. I know one of my own methods papers has been downloaded thousands of times, but according to ISI it has only been cited a few times (mostly by me). I like to think people are using the paper to help them perform their studies, but are just not citing it, either that or a whole lot of bandwidth has been wasted.