I used to work in particle/astrophysics. By and large people weren't opposed to sharing their data and software. The degree of specific expertise it took to get results was staggerng though. It takes significant technical infrastructure and expertise to even just rerun an analysis on a big corpus of data. At that stage, you haven't even validated squat, just pushed some buttons to run other people's logic. Doing this properly takes person years of effort with little to no reward.

In practice, there's usually at least two big experiments (not necessarily quite of the same generation) that were built by different groups which corroborate results. This is currently the best defense against big mistakes.

I did not read the article till the very last paragraph. My bad. Of course, I do not refute it. So in this particular case they went open source.

However, from my experience in years of publishing to and reviewing for several APS journals, I stand by my statement. Because of 'publish or perish' nobody wants to give up any 'competitive edge' of their particular research. So there is no incentive system in place to foster an open source everything attitude.

This is changing. Slowly, as it seems to be mostly a generational issue.

The younger scientists, current PhD generation and a little up are all fed up with closed source/private data as there are no enough bright examples how good open source/data can work out.