Although this is a reasonable definition, it would mean many people who are referred to as scientists in practice would have to be considered non-scientists. Re

Although this is a reasonable definition, it would mean many people who are referred to as scientists in practice would have to be considered non-scientists. Refusing to publish data and code is widespread in many academic fields, even in cases where academics sign documents promising to provide these things on demand. For example, at minimum psychology, epidemiology and climatology have this problem. In climatology attempts to get the source code of models and data underlying papers has led to some of the biggest dramas in the field e.g. the Climategate hacker appears to have been motivated by the closedness of the field (similar to the llama leaker). Given that society is clearly not ready to reclassify large parts of academic work as non-scientific, it seems like this definition cannot work even on its own terms.