They work hard, love their works, and read all other papers but think more than others, they have many team works, they are patient, they are creative, with clear thoughts, and often try to invent and propose some new concepts and ideas and then, they try to develop those methods in their future works, they see the horizons and roots, they have a sharp view and a deep vision, they have some philosophic viewpoints, they try to heighten the level of literature in their field, not just publishing more papers. They have some similarities to real professional pioneer artists, for example, they are so focused and can concentrate from various corners. 

This was a basic question I've often asked my grad students. Any observation on it would be thought-provocative.

Interestingly, according to many encyclopedia editors/authors, the archaic Latin word 'praeēminēre' means to project forward (into unknown) so as to become prominent. Starting from this, we can claim that an eminent scientist should be able (i) to extrapolate comprehensively from a given state of the art in a particular field of interest, (ii) to propose a feasible plan of actions that opens up a new way and a non-conventional approach of inquiry also for others, (iii) to show leadership in both theoretical and practical points of view, (iv) to synthesize research results, including those of independent peers, in an imaginary and purposeful manner, and (v) to earn recognition of peers and stakeholders for indispensable contributions.

They work hard, love their works, and read all other papers but think more than others, they have many team works, they are patient, they are creative, with clear thoughts, and often try to invent and propose some new concepts and ideas and then, they try to develop those methods in their future works, they see the horizons and roots, they have a sharp view and a deep vision, they have some philosophic viewpoints, they try to heighten the level of literature in their field, not just publishing more papers. They have some similarities to real professional pioneer artists, for example, they are so focused and can concentrate from various corners. 

I think being seen as a renowned scholar is a peculiar relationship between the scholar, as an actor, and the society (including peers, managers, competitors, exploiters, etc.) as an audience. Considering this complex relationship, painstaking and untiring work may be just a necessary, but is not a sufficient condition. I know many scholars who have worked and are working hard, but cannot communicate their important insights in the right way or to the right audience, or are just simply not 'picked up', while others achieve much more with less effort and more luck. And there are hidden selection mechanisms as well... 

Please let me know if this reference is helpful to you:

Valuing Assessment in Science Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Policy

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9400766688

Deborah Corrigan, ‎Richard Gunstone, ‎Alister Jones - 2013 - ‎Science

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Imre is correct concerning hidden selection mechanisms as assumed personal characteristics may not be enough. Scholarship is replete with brilliant, often original ideas that lanquish in obscurity as do their originators. Many creative artists (writers, etc), contrary to common belief, may never emerge no matter their qualities while others achieve early success. Talent is not neccesarily the assessed criterion for acknowledgement by peers or public. Discovering why some emerge and others do not, without reference to 'genius' or lack of it, is a project worth undertaking. 

Further, I suggest pre-eminence comes through negotiation between public, peers-past/present, etc. The settling on an individual or group to represent a set of discoveries, a mark of talent or style. Who remembers now the scientist/priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory although Einstein who rejected him and his theories is (rightly) celebrated. But surely there are at present scientists as talented as Einstein, but perhaps now they chiefly function within groups-teams. There are Miltons amongst us, surely, without master pieces to show because epics are no longer bought or desired. In the present day, the most prominent poets are those employed by exam bodies for their technical ability, who say nothing, rocking no boats, raising no difficult questions.

Interesting comment; I am following