Academics regularly get away with just posting results as graphs, without even the actual numbers in the graphs given out. And certainly not data, code, etc. I'

Academics regularly get away with just posting results as graphs, without even the actual numbers in the graphs given out. And certainly not data, code, etc. I've done that for multiple papers in top journals in my field, and lots of others do the same. I give out the data and sometimes the code when people email me, but it's never required during the peer review process. Reviewers are just expected to believe the results in the submitted paper. I always find it funny when people hold so much faith in the peer review process, like the reviewers have some special knowledge or insight that let's them legitimize a paper. Majority of the time, the peer reviewers read the exact same thing everyone else reads, then provide suggestions for change, etc and eventually accept the paper for publication. But in terms of actual verification that the authors of the paper are not fabricating results, there is nothing remotely close to that.