Submitting a replication dataset can significantly decrease that probability. If there happens to be new information in the variables and observations submitted, the author will have a substantial head start in extracting such information. In most cases, nearly two years elapse from completion of the article to final publication. If this is not sufficient lead time in a given instance, the author can still submit the dataset and choose an embargo for a specified period, or even commit to submitting it at a specified future date. Implementing the replication standard will make much more data available through public archives.
Experience suggests just the opposite.
Hence, it appears that increasing the availability of original data inspires other scholars to collect original data themselves. In fact, one learns so much by replicating existing research that collecting new data, by following the successful procedures developed in past research, should be made much easier. There might be some advantages to coordination, but the reason we have different journals in the first instance argues against waiting. Each journal has a different constituency, follows different style manuals, has different quality standards, different editorial boards, different editors, different reviewers, different methodological styles, different copyeditors, and encourages a different mix of substantive articles. It should not be surprising or troubling if different journals adopted slightly different policies regarding replication, or adopted them in accordance with different timetables.