That is frustrating. In my field of cognitive neuroscience, there is often little incentive for a researcher to hide parts of their methods from their 'competitors' since, for example, my memory study is not about reporting but protecting a new technology. Indeed, prestige is often a consequence of others adopting your methods, so researchers are motivated to share scripts, and report the methods fully.
HOWEVER, certain journals can place limits on the length of the methods section, which is a damn shame.
> there is often little incentive for a researcher to hide parts of their methods from their 'competitors' since, for example, my memory study is not about reporting but protecting a new technology
If you are protecting, not reporting information (e.g., about a new technology), why would you be incentivized to share it?
Then I contact the author and they send me a protocol that is a 'distant cousin' to what I read in the published article.
This caused me to assiduously report methods when I wrote papers.