To illustrate a couple problems with it being standard (importantly, note this paper was in a clinical epidemiology journal, so we are invariably talking about

To illustrate a couple problems with it being standard (importantly, note this paper was in a clinical epidemiology journal, so we are invariably talking about human health data): 1) Are you sure the data is deidentified? Can your analysis be done on the deidentified data? 2) Do you actually own the data? This is more complicated than "Well you published a paper on it...". The data is likely governed by data use agreements. Those are often extremely complex - especially at the international level. Or if you're working with particular populations - they're not wrong to be wary of who their data is given to, given the history of how science generally has treated them. 3) Is the data in a form that's genuinely suited to being shared? Is it in a flat file, with clear and easy to understand variable names, a good data dictionary, etc.? Is missingness, and the reasons why, clear and evident (the difference between a variable with a lot of missingness and a variable that's a bit garbage is often subtle)? 4) Where do you put it - and importantly, who pays for that, and how long?