Michał Ordak

A few days ago I was notified to become the chair of the just established Statistics Working Group of the World Association of Medical Editors (BMJ, Lancet, etc.). @i_yakoub_agha @_atanas_ @EmmaGuttman @sminaev2015 @ScienceCommuni2 @TheLancet @EAACI_HQ @WAME_editors @PinkasJJ

Can AI truly support statistical analysis and statistical peer review? Where are its limits? In this review, I synthesize the 2023–2025 evidence and discuss its implications for internal medicine. @PolishArchives @ScienceCommuni2 @Eur_Sci_Ed @EurekAlert @WCRIFoundation

Following an editorial invitation, my article “Why listening to learners matters in medical education reform” was published in @bmj_latest and shows that learner informed, practice oriented education improves outcomes and reduces stress.

I am pleased to serve as Guest Editor of the IJMS Special Issue "Biostatistics and Data Analysis in Molecular Sciences." It promotes rigorous biostatistical standards to improve reliability and interpretation of molecular research. @MDPIOpenAccess

@Nigelj08223326 @ligabowebster @Michell24423236 @LynchLainey @geoffshumba @Johnnypapa64 Drawing on over 𝟱𝟬𝟬 statistical peer reviews conducted in 2025, my short piece in The BMJ shows that this optimism is weakened by persistent flaws in statistical reporting.

Good news in 2025 bmj.com/content/391/bm… Lets celebrate GOOD NEWS The hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic the smallest and shortest lived since 2019 Cancer Stroke Ebola STDs + smoking @ligabowebster @Michell24423236 @LynchLainey @geoffshumba @Johnnypapa64 🩺🙏

The BMJ News article highlights optimism in medicine and public health. Drawing on over 𝟱𝟬𝟬 statistical peer reviews conducted in 2025, my short piece in The BMJ shows that this optimism is weakened by persistent flaws in statistical reporting. @bmj_latest @GlobalHealthBMJ

@EAACI_HQ Selected as a Mentor, I invite JMs to learn what I offer: discussing statistical and methodological errors, recognising reliable analyses, planning approaches, writing recommendations, conducting research for EAACI presentation, regular meetings, and other support. @EAACI_JM

Level up your allergy career with a mentor by your side! 🌍🧠 EAACI Junior Members can now apply for the JM Mentorship Programme 2026 – international, online, and designed to boost your science, skills & network. 👩‍🏫 Up to 12 mentees 🧬 2-year mentorship & collaboration 📅 Apply by 8 January 2025 Ready to meet your future mentor? ✉️ Find out all information in the following link: eaaci.org/programmes/men…

Congratulations to Dr. Ordak receiving Allergy’s Top Reviewer Award. journalallergy.com #Topreviewer #Allergy_journal

I’m pleased to share that I received two individual Rector’s Awards: a first-degree award for research on WAME members’ views on statistical peer review and a second-degree award for a study on Polish medical students’ views on biostatistics. @PolishArchives @BioMedCentral

@Andrew_Akbashev Many authors express concern that applying appropriate statistical methods would result in non-significant findings, which they believed would reduce their chances of publication. ese.arphahub.com/article/164741/

11 papers retracted from a PhD student. Surprising? Not really. Just check the recent news: 1. The rector of a Spanish university ran a citation-inflation scheme. He was one of Spain’s most-cited academics. Springer Nature retracted 75 papers linked to him in 2024. 2. Another highly-cited chemist in Spain was suspended for 13 years by his university in 2023. In June 2025, at least 11 of his papers were retracted for fraudulent practices. 3. A German anesthesiologist has had 184 retractions. He was once one of the leading international figures in perioperative medicine Just wow. 4. A French mega-cited scientist, a director of IHU Méditerranée Infection, had 6 retractions for ethics violations and 50 articles marked by PLOS. He retired after that. 5. A Japan scientist in anesthesiology had > 170 fabricated papers. His career ended. 6. A Harvard professor had her tenure revoked and was fired in May 2025 after an internal misconduct finding. 7. The STANFORD PRESIDENT resigned after data manipulation was found in several highly cited papers. Two Science papers were retracted. 8. A tenured professor from the University of Minnesota resigned in March 2025 after the retraction of a highly cited Nature paper in June 2024 due to manipulated images. 9. A very high-profile professor from Cornell resigned after two dozen retractions. 📍 What’s going on? Very simple. Make metrics the aim, and science disappears. Many scientists pursue careers instead of science. They focus on awards, number of papers, citations… Their labs turn into production factories - factories of low-quality research and low-quality graduates. ❗️Remember: Your career should be a by-product of science. Not the opposite.

Today in @scholarlykitchn I discuss how clear statistical guidelines can help reduce the pressure for “nice” results and support authors, reviewers and editors. scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/10/02/gue…

@fake_journals @timesofindia This applies, among others, to statistical reviewers, and nowadays we unfortunately face pressure to obtain p < 0.05, which I wrote about in European Science Editing. ese.arphahub.com/article/164741/

Peer review crisis is stalling India’s scientific progress | @timesofindia buff.ly/U06T0G0

In BMJ I argue that medical education works when it meets real needs; contextual biostatistics teaching improves learning, research quality and patient care. bmj.com/content/390/bm… @bmj_latest

AI-Assisted Statistical Review: Could It Have Averted Retractions? A Case-Based Perspective From #Immunology. Michal Ordak Read the article here: doi.org/10.1111/all.16… This study explores the potential and limitations of using AI models to assist in the detection of statistical flaws during peer review. Using #ChatGPT and #Gemini Advanced 2.0, three retracted articles due to statistical errors were queried with questions regarding statistical errors, test assumptions and reporting clarity. Although both models identified issues in all of the articles, their inherent limitations are discussed. Read more articles published in #Allergy here: journalallergy.com #allergy_journal

Pleased to share my review just published in Allergy: a structured, example-based overview of statistical methods in allergy & immunology to support transparent reporting and sound interpretation. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/al… @AllergyEaaci @EAACI_JM @EaaciKH @pai_eaaci @EAACI_HQ

Proactive use of the SAMPL Guidelines improves clarity, acceptance rates, reviewer consensus, reduces errors and review rounds. @ElsevierConnect @WileyGlobal @SpringerNature @OxUniPress @CellPressNews @tandfonline @i_yakoub_agha sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@AlicjaGardulska @KarolinaZioloP @MNiSW_GOV__PL forumakademickie.pl/jak-ocena-para…

Jaka będzie nowa ewaluacja nauki? Od jutra cykl spotkań w tej sprawie z wiceministrą @KarolinaZioloP a u mnie trochę nowych pomysłów @MNiSW_GOV__PL: #s=S.index-K.C-B.1-L.1.duzy" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">wyborcza.pl/7,75398,321178…

Obecny system oceny dorobku sprzyja presji na liczbę publikacji kosztem jakości analiz. forumakademickie.pl/jak-ocena-para… @k_pyrc @naukawpolsce @FNP_org_pl @NCN_PL @NAWAPoland @NCBR_pl @MNiSW_GOV__PL @AgencjaBadanMed @Puls_Medycyny @MenedzerZdrowia

#Ewaluacja, jeśli ma wspierać jakość, powinna uwzględniać także takie aspekty, jak rzetelność prowadzenia badań. Wymaga to zmian w systemie, który obecnie kładzie zbyt duży nacisk na liczbę publikacji – uważa @MichaOrdak ⤵️ forumakademickie.pl/jak-ocena-para…

@CabellsPublish @physorg_com Thank you for sharing my article and much appreciated. ese.arphahub.com/article/164741/

The psychological burden of statistical significance in #academic #publishing buff.ly/nsqcBy8 via @physorg_com "[T]he pressure is not due to ignorance, but to visible institutional demands and a belief that publication relies on statistically significant results."

@DrMelMckendrick Thank you for sharing my article and much appreciated. ese.arphahub.com/article/164741/

A new paper published in European Science Editing highlights the growing psychological strain on researchers driven by pressure to obtain statistically significant results in academic publishing. phys.org/news/2025-07-p…