Towards re-aligning career and science, multiple proposals have made, including pre-registration of experiments and new metrics based on the veracity of work \cite{Nicholson2014,Grabitz_2017}. We believe that the adoption of more metrics, aligned better with science, will allow researchers and administrators to better effectively understand researchers work in the context of others. For example, in todays world a paper that has 100 citations or more is generally considered a success. What if of those 100 citations, 4 studies found it to be wrong by their own evidence and the rest simply mentioned it? The ability to look at papers using sentiment analysis of linked papers (ie citations) would allow us to identify robust work versus unsupported work or even refuted work. By measuring, work that is supportive, researchers would be incentivized to do all they could so that others could come to similar findings. That is, they would be incentivized to to share data openly, to publish fully detailed protocols complete so that others could reproduce their work, and to publish openly. This is becoming a reality already, with the R-factor and the implications of such a tool will hopefully soon be realized. Toward