[6gvONxR4sf7o]

I agree in part here, but think it doesn’t apply to all papers. Those wrong interpretations you mention are generally because statistical inference is hard, and it’s an unfortunate reality that a lot of scientists are bad statisticians.

There’s an article on the front page of HN about a nature retraction that came from someone asking authors of a paper for their data. That tells me that the data can be useful for fixing suspicions results. But also that simply asking for it can be sufficient. I wonder how often authors say no to data requests. My guess is only in the fishiest cases and in old cases. Publishing code and data isn’t high up the priority list, but in a lot of studies, it’s simple enough to be good ROI.