Journals are incentivized to publish fantastic results. Organizing raw data in a way that the uninitiated can understand it presents serious friction in getting results out the door.

The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it, but a massive cultural shift is required and there will be growing pains.

You could also try emailing the corresponding authors. Any good-faith scientist should be happy to share what they have, assuming it's well organized/legible.

[0] https://new.nsf.gov/public-access [1] https://sharing.nih.gov/

> The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it

Feels like wrong way round - organisations paying for journals should be demanding it as proof?

Replicating the results from someone's original data is difficult and time consuming, and other researchers aren't getting paid to do that (they're getting paid to do new research). And of course the (unpaid) reviewers don't have time either.

It's becoming more common for journals to have policies which require that raw data be made available. Here's some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data

One of the purposes of a site on which I work (https://fairsharing.org) is to assist researchers in finding places where they might upload their data (usually to comply with publishers' requirements).