Both reward and credibility originate essentially from peers' comments about other scientists
Firstly, evaluative comments made by scientists make no distinction between scientists as people and their scientific claims. Secondly, the main thrust of these comments turn on an assessment of the credibility which can he invested in an individual's claim.
[There is a] common conflation of colleague and his substance: the credibility of the proposal and of the proposer are identical.
For a working scientist, the most vital question is not 'Did I repay my debt in the form of recognition because of the good paper he wrote?' but 'Is he reliable enough to be believed? Can I trust him/his claim? Is he going to provide me with hard facts?' Scientists are thus interested in one another not because they are forced by a special system of norms to acknowledge others' achievements, but because each needs the other in order to increase his own production of credible information.