Closed science, especially in the biological sciences, has been having trouble with reproducibility (and/or replication, if the distinction is important to you). Usually this is not just because the data was analyzed incorrectly, so open data doesn't help much. And if you're trying to reproduce something that's published, you presumably already got the methods etc. regardless of whether it was open access or not.
When labs get different results, the discrepancies often are solved when they can agree to go visit each other and look in detail at protocols and so on.
The difference is in how much information is available when visiting in person compared to the distilled version in the methods paper. With a sufficiently open approach, this information ought to be available to everyone. But writing methods sections is already hassle enough--making much more detail available isn't likely to become widespread unless there are tools that make it easy (or easier to do than not!).
What kind of tools are there for making public not just data and results but the protocols and process that go into generating the data? Are there electronic lab notebooks that have features that enable easy and ongoing exporting of results in some comprehensible fashion? Have any groups who are trying to work openly published or described a set of best practices for making available the gory details of how their research is being conducted?
This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)