Once again, I am having trouble interpreting data in an article and I write to the authors. There have been several other cases where my email was just simply never responded to, even after multiple attempts. Asking for things as basic as primer sequences. This time the authors come back to us in a long winded way and simply say the raw data is not available. How can that be possible? The last time I wasn't satisfied with authors responses (after advice from a comment on this blog) I posted a comment on the journal website. The main author (big man in the field) of the article got back to my boss with a clearly unhappy email saying I was creating an extra hassle for them because now they had to respond to my comments on the website.
There has got to be some retribution for people whose published work cannot stand the trials of other people following their work. Both the reviewers and the main authors need to be able to explain such deficiencies. I guess nobody has the time.