I had follow this thread with lot of interest.
I do neuroanatomy and the size of my image data sets makes this approcah
impracticable. I see more use when numerical data is involved. Unfortunately
numerical data from image capturing and analysis equipment is _not_ raw data.
However even in my field there is some relevance to the proposition. Papers
in top ranked journals have to be small because very tight space limitations.
One major constraint is in the number of figures. This has provoked a
continuoulsy increasing use of the "data not shown" strategy for many of the
morphological findings reported in Science, Nature, Neuron.... Unfortunately
the "data not shown" are usually controls and other data needed to justify the
interpretation of the data shown. In my experience the frequency of
unreproducible or not-exactly reproducible data can be alarmingly high among
this "data not shown" statements. It would be usefull to have a place where
the authors have to show the nature of _all_ their data even when the journal
did not have enough space to publish it.
Francisco J. Alvarez
Department of Anatomy
Wright Sate University