Counterintuitive effects of incentives?

A recent paper in this journal compares the Norwegian model of using publications counts for university funding with a similar intervention in Australia in the mid 1990s. The authors argue that the Norwegian model (taking into account the quality of publications) performs better than the Australian (which did neglect paper quality other than being peer reviewed). We argue that these conclusions are in contrast to the evidence provided in the article, and therefore should be considered incorrect.