Finally, I’d like to see some graphs of the raw data, along with replicated datasets from the model. The paper admirably connects the underlying problem to the statistical model; however, the Bayesian approach requires a lot of modeling assumptions, and I’d be a lot more convinced if I could (a) see some of the data and (b) see that the fitted model would produce simulations that look somewhat like the actual data. Otherwise we’re taking it all on faith.
I believe all reviewers would prefer to have access to well documented data and programs. Some are working on technology to make this less onerous on both authors and reviewers. In the R group it get referred to as reproducible research, compendiums and or vignettes.
Being able to access the data would be fine, too, but usually I don't want to replicate the research myself. What I want is for the researchers to put some fraction of the effort they've put in fitting the model, into displaying the data and exploring the aspects in which the model fits (and doesn't).