Text ranking by the weight of highly frequent words

Almost every scientist, by ordering their own published articles or those of others from the most to the least cited paper, will conclude that only the head of the list is truly significant and existent for the scientific community. I also did this with my papers when posting them in descending order on my website a few years ago (Popescu 2001). The question was if there exists a simple and objective “head cutoff” for this purpose. A proposal in this connection has only recently been set forth for the quantification of scientific output of individuals by a single and easily computable scientometric parameter (Hirsch 2005). This is the “h-index”, defined as the number h of papers with citation counts higher or equal to h. For instance, a scientist cumulating a h-index of, say, h = 20, will have published 20 papers that have received at least 20 citations each. Obviously, the corresponding Hirsch’s point H(h,h) on the (rank, frequency) citation curve appears as a “turning point”, the closest to the (rank, frequency) origin, as illustrated in Figure 1. Generally, by construction proper, the (rank, frequency) citation distribution starts with the rank number one, corresponding to the most highly cited paper (“there’s one in every crowd”) and ends with the rank equal to the total number of papers having at least one citation. Consequently, the total number of citations is given by the area under the (rank, frequency) citation curve. Hirsch also found that this area is proportional to h2, i.e. Total Citation Count = ah2, with the constant a ranging between the values 3 and 5 for the papers in the field of physics. For university teachers in Physics, as suggested by Hirsch, a value of h ≈ 12 would be a minimal threshold for an associate professor, while a value of at least h ≈ 18 is needed for advancement to full professor. At the very top of this scale there are scientists cumulating up to about h ≈ 100 for physical sciences and almost h ≈ 200 for biological and