Authorship on peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the main currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward has become a crucial component for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus value authorship as their primary reward mechanism. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have attempted to write guidelines for defining who gets to be an author and what rank they should be listed in, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how the various criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here we sought to quantify the relative importance of each of the 11 criteria we defined as being significant contributions for scientific authorship. We sent out an anonymous survey to approximately 564 faculty members at ten different research institutions across the United States. The faculty were from the biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering departments. The response rate was approximately 18% with a final sample size of 102 faculty members. We found that there was a consensus on some criteria as being crucial, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of consensus regarding the role of obtaining funding. This study provides one of the first quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biomedical sciences evaluated these 11 authorship criteria. We believe researchers will find this insightful and will narrow down the disparity between what they assume as being important and what faculty value. This understanding will also bring us closer to establishing a more standardized system for determining authorship and rank in the biosciences.