Your question was fairly well received with 7 upvotes, 0 downvotes and mixed reviews (but ultimately closed). Of those that participated in the review process, 2 voted to leave your question open after it was nominated to be closed. It is also worth noting that it currently has 2 re-open votes.
Look at some of the comments your post received:
This is a very interesting question, but it feels like it's inviting a discussion — you're only going to get people's opinions — and there is no 'answer'. Journals have policies, enforced or not, and individual researchers, readers, and reviewers have their preferences. I don't know, but this feels like the wrong venue for the conversation.
I feel that points 2 and 4 ("which occurrence is more common" and "how does this work in Earth Sciences") should be on-topic: essentially it's asking "what are the norms for reproducibility in earth science", which at least in theory should be possible to answer objectively
And your response to them:
while the current answers are fine( more like individual experiences/suggestions) the kind of answer that I want is what is presented in that question asked in academia.SE. In other words an objective assessment of what it is in ES.
The comments by others indicate the premise of your question is good (and it is), but as worded it invites opinion. However, they provide suggestions (e.g. focus on points 2 and 4) on how to address this and even you acknowledge that you want objective assessment.
Take this as an opportunity! Question that are "on hold" are signposts that mean "please edit me!". You have some direction on making the question more objective and suitable for re-opening.
Rather than delete this question, edit it! Fix the issues and specifically ask for objective metrics or what the current standard of reproducablity is in earth science. Even better if you can narrow it down to specific disciplines within earth science. Once the question is edited and suitable then re-open it. This question already has 2 re-open votes and if you edit the question address why people closed it in the first place, you should be able to get it back open.