It's standard practice to show your data in the physical and life sciences. In the social sciences, psychologists just ignore calls to do that.

I mentioned Diederik Stapel in the intro and he would have been easy to catch if editors and peer reviewers had expected data. Instead, there was a culture of 'I won't question your methodology if you don't question mine' but in an era of declining government budgets, and demands from scientists that their budgets no longer be taken up by psychology studies, young psychologists have taken charge and have begun to demand accountability. That means open science.

Publicly available data means rigor has to be in place and that also makes it possible to do legitimate meta-analyses.

Open access will have less impact - most of the research is only read by other psychologists, not the public - but the public can be pretty smart. They won't be psychologists but many of them know statistics and it's always good to have transparency, rather than a 'black box' where snazzy press releases based on conclusions from suspect methodologies get published as fact in mainstream media.

Young researchers grew up in a culture of open access. They want to be read.

On to: #3 Replication