The most frequent cause for disputes among scientists appears to be the criteria for authorship. Authorship, and more generally credit, is a central component of the structure of science. First, the framework of science, depends in part on our ability to identify the development and evolution of new ideas and discoveries. Historically, the recognition of the key players has been useful for understanding what and how we've learned. Second, for the working scientist, it is important to have a basis for reaching out to attract both new trainees and willing collaborators.
Authorship can be useful as a means to demonstrate a successful research program.
Third, it is often presumed that past success, as evidenced by authorship, is a valid basis for funding agencies to use in the allocation of research grants. Finally, in an era of increasing emphasis on commercialization, authorship and credit are clearly linked closely to intellectual property rights. These reasons, and others, provide a compelling argument for scientists to desire the credit of authorship. A common myth is that the criteria for authorship are widely known and accepted. In fact, the methods of assigning authorship can vary greatly even within the same institution or discipline of biomedical research.