In recent years a few fields of science have been hit with reproducibility scandals. Initially precipitated by John Ioannidis’s study of reproducibility in clinical research [14], [14], the reproducibility crisis has expanded to include scientific domains like psychological science [14] and cancer research [14]. Being experiment based, reproducing work in these domains is often time and resource intensive. Career pressures push scientists to go for new big results frequently. This creates a perverse incentive structure which encourages the production of dubious or outright fradulent results [14], [14]. Indeed, researchers have a wide variety of tools at their disposal in order to publish dubious research such as choices in experimental design and p-value games.