Also: if it's just a proposed intermediate composition (as is mentioned in other comments as the author's explanation), the comment could very well mean to think up something plausible to propose, with the understanding that most readers will think to themselves that although it wasn't actually measured, there is a plausible route.
It looks to me like this particular bit of the paper really isn't the main thrust, and so doesn't need to be proven as rigorously. So in my mind it's not a huge smoking gun.
I've personally seen a couple papers submitted for review where figures were crudely photoshopped. The usual play here is to be gentlemanly and to assume that they were just throwing in a dummy figure to be replaced later when they got presentable data... except they forgot to make the change.
This is a minor embarrassment for the authors (who can now expect closer scrutiny!), but also for the journal... they should be keeping a close eye on what they're publishing!
(IMO: I find it completely irresponsible to "break" a story like this, presented as fact, and then promise to investigate the possibility that it might not be right. For shame!)
> J.J. Emerson Says: August 7th, 2013 at 1:09 AM Also:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/make-s...
> Paul Says: August 7th, 2013 at 1:20 AM @J.J. Emerson: That is indeed a possibility. I have e-mailed the author and promised that his response will be inserted, unedited, in the main post (not as a comment). I have also linked to the primary documents related to this story to allow readers to judge for themselves.
I agree that the comment could be a benign misuse of English, but observations like the fact that the compound in question does not correspond to the one in the main paper suggest something funny might be going on. Also, I have much more information than what is posted here. I will be doing more investigative work in the coming days, and should it merit more reporting, I will write a new post.
With that said, I felt I needed to get a quick initial story up (1) before the SI was retracted or modified and (2) before my very able “competitors” broke the story.
Thanks for your input.
See definition #1: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_up
Around here (UK) I hear "make up" to mean "create" all the time... If it is fake or real depends on context, and "just" isn't enough to form an opinion.
"...make an elementary analysis." [strongly implies 'do the necessary work']
"...make up an elementary analysis." [might mean 'do the work' but has some implicature of 'improvise from your imagination']
On the other hand, 'whip up' is merely an idiom for 'bring together quickly', and so "...whip up an elementary analysis" would again have no implication of faked data (as opposed to real data collected quickly).
So specifically if 'fabrication' is chosen where a simpler word would do, or chosen to contrast with a simpler word, then it acquires increasing implication of falsified/counterfeit work.
If you (or more likely an large team/firm) can 'fabricate' a 'car', good job, you're skilled.
If on the other hand you 'fabricate' a 'paper' or 'result' or 'fact' or 'photo' or 'logo', you're involved in something shady.
This factory fabricates iPhones.
vs.
The fabricated iPhones came from this factory.
When statements-which-purport-to-be-facts are fabricated, it means they're falsified. So "his claim (that these phones are iPhones) was fabricated" does mean that the phones are not truly iPhones.
As I consider it, this makes some sense; you cannot create a fact, but you can create a physical object, and you can create a lie. Things like an analysis are on the border. And indeed, my intuition as a native speaker accepts "fabricate an analysis" in either sense.
It's a little bit of an uncommon/sloppy usage, but still clear... more likely to appear in impromptu speech than writing.
"The fabricated news came from this propaganda ministry" works perfectly, however
The point being argued here is that the words "make up" often mean "prepare". That means the phrase "just make up X" is equivalent to "just prepare X". The latter is obviously innocuous. If you want to demonstrate evidence of fradulent behaviour, the burden of proof is much higher.
It's really disgusting what's happening here. This guy and his student are being shamed and castigated without any solid evidence of wrongdoing.
It's very embarrassing that an article would get published with a clear lack of proofreading (and presumably missing data), but based on his comments I'm willing to hold off on suspecting fraud for now.