On the useful side of the discussions (?) between carpender and george and others is a good discussion of how to do science esp by tom holtz. I would like to emphasize that physics has its problems too and data can be misread and/or mistreated. (I'm and old physic type). However there are some things that are done right. Implrtant experiments that produce significant data and data assessment and not excepted unless another experimenter or group has verified the results. Its just too expensive in time and money to use results that are later proved to be wrong. I could use the low temp fusion fiasco as an example. So what we do is reproduce and then argue and all that fun stuff.
There may be value in using that approach especially in key findings by having a second independent description based on the known material with their own hands. Thus published would ,I think, provide a basis for analysis without the requirement to handle all the data (fossils) extant.