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-1990 s. 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.

中文翻译：

---

激励有悖常理吗？

该杂志最近的一篇论文将挪威使用大学资助的出版物数量的模型与1990年代中期在澳大利亚的类似干预进行了比较。作者认为，挪威的模型（考虑到出版物的质量）比澳大利亚的模型（澳大利亚的模型质量不如同行评审而忽略了纸张质量）要好。我们认为这些结论与本文提供的证据相反，因此应认为是不正确的。