My first instinct was also to assume the PI meant "put together". There is a comment along these lines from reader "J.J. Emerson"; immediately below the article

My first instinct was also to assume the PI meant "put together". There is a comment along these lines from reader "J.J. Emerson"; immediately below the article. I reproduce that and the response from the guy making the allegation. Check it out. (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-sth-up_2 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 With that said, I felt I needed to get a quick initial story up (1) before the SI was retracted or modified and (2) before my very able “competitors” broke the story.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.