I argue that requiring authors to post the raw data supporting their published results
has the benefit, among many others, of making fraud much less likely to go undetected.
I illustrate this point by describing two cases of suspected fraud I identified exclusively
through statistical analysis of reported means and standard deviations. Analyses of
the raw data behind these published results provided invaluable confirmation of the
initial suspicions, ruling out benign explanations (e.g., reporting errors, unusual
distributions), identifying additional signs of fabrication, and also ruling out one
of the suspected fraud's explanations for his anomalous results. If journals, granting
agencies, universities, or other entities overseeing research promoted or required
data posting, it seems inevitable that fraud would be reduced.