> When one editor started asking authors to add their raw data after they submitted a paper to his journal, half of them declined and retracted their submission

> When one editor started asking authors to add their raw data after they submitted a paper to his journal, half of them declined and retracted their submissions. This suggests, in the editor’s words, “a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning.” While fraud is certainly possible, it's far more likely that it's just academics following incentives. Difficult to acquire data is a moat that others can't breach. There is no way in hell any scientist fighting inside the "publish-or-perish" paradigm is going to cough up one of their few advantages.