Seems like a reasonable hypothesis:
"In this editorial, I argue that making raw data openly available is not only important for reuse and data mining but also for simply confirming that the results presented in the paper are truly based on actual data. With such concept, the data sharing policy of Molecular Brain has been changed and I introduce this update."
https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
@cyrilpedia Documenting everything sufficient for others to use the data would take massive investments of time and expertise(much of which would need to be done by students and postdocs, who have limited time contracts). Are we willing to fund this effort?
If someone wants the raw data, they can join the collaboration. It means they have to meaningful contribute, but that’s good because that lends understanding.
@cyrilpedia My experience with data is in high-energy physics but the smaller experiments. “Raw data” to us is always in a specialized high-efficiency format that needs to be unpacked, filtered, and calibrated before it can get even to the first stage analysis. The filtering and other processes always creates small biases that you have to account for when comparing to theory. So what to do?