I have a strong (probably unusual) standard when it comes to computer modeled science: if explanation requires software or data that I don't have access to, I completely disregard it.  That might sound kind of crazy given the state of science and my chosen profession, but (maybe because of my chosen profession) I know that a complex system can tell you whatever you want it to tell you.  It won't be the truth, but it will be "convincing" to most people.  If the research really mattered, someone would reproduce it with independent software and data anyway.<p>I think this is a good solution to the problem.  If most people only believed in reproducible science, there would be pressure on authors to use software and data that can be shared, or no publisher would carry their article.  Seems easy to me.