Publication bias. Reproducibility problem. Abusing statistical tests.
These are some of the many criticisms received by all fields of science for a long time. If I read an article in Psychological Science and am sceptical of their results, or if I want to apply another statistical technique to see if the results remain convincing to me, I can't. I need to run another experiment. Or if I want to conduct a meta-analysis, maybe having other researchers' raw data is better than just the mean/CI they report in journals.
If scientists' mission is for the public good and for the advancement of knowledge, why don't they publish their results in raw (of course they need to remove research participants' privacy information)? They shouldn't be afraid of others' criticising their work. Only truth can endure the testing of time.
Nowadays, with the prevalence (and low price) of online storage platform and sophisticated database management, why don't they do it for the public's good?
EDIT: by raw data, I mean to make the dataset public and accessible to everyone (well... at least researchers)
EDIT: Thank you for everyone’s input. As I come from the field of psychology, and the practice of making out data available is not common, I wrongly assumed that it is also true for other fields...