License for research projects
The short and to the point answer is that no currently existing licence does what you want. If you wanted to do as you say, you'd need to write a new licence. That would probably mean employing lawyers. 

The long answer is that I doubt whether any such licence would be enforceable in practice. Further, in general scientific software that is released under restrictive or unusal licences is generally not well used by the community. See Lior's Pachter experience. Important here is not that this was about for-profit vs not-for-profit use, but that when people are unsure about a licence, they just won't use your work. 

If you don't care that people won't use your work you must ask why you are releasing it in the first place. One hopes that you are releasing it because you wish to further the horizon of human knowledge and believe that your library has a role to play in doing that. If nobody uses your library, you are not meeting your goal any better than if people used the software in non-reproducible science. I you do not want people to use your library then you are not doing science, anymore than those that refuse to release their data or methods are. 

Putting all that effort and cost into inventing a new licence, which in the end might lead to people not using your software is a poor use of resources to achieve your ends. Much better to expend that effort convincing journals not to accept non-reproducible things, reviewers to actually review the reproducible of the code and into creating infrastructure that makes it easy to do.