This is a pretty weak argument, because (a) arguments from scientific validity always trump arguments from incentives, (b) you seem to assume that the incentives you list are all the incentives there are. Do note, for example, that scientists also face the incentive to do good science that can stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. It's not enough to point out that the science has some impact and call it a day (after all, almost all good science has impact).
For this to be an "illustration", as you put it, you'd have to first demonstrate that what they did was scientifically dubious, then conclude that they must have done the dubious thing because of incentives. You can't just point at the sign of the adjustment and invoke incentives.
I'd say you'd be much more convincing if you raised actual scientific issues, instead of making vague assertions about their incentives.
For this to be an "illustration", as you put it, you'd have to first demonstrate that what they did was scientifically dubious, then conclude that they must have done the dubious thing because of incentives. You can't just point at the sign of the adjustment and invoke incentives. I'd say you'd be much more convincing if you raised actual scientific issues, instead of making vague assertions about their incentives.