Reports an error in "Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence" by Maximilian Maier, Noah van Dongen and Denny Borsboom (Psychological Methods, Advanced Online Publication, Mar 02, 2023, np). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2023 The Author(s)," and the omitted disclaimer is below: Open Access funding provided by University College London: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format, as well as adapting the material for any purpose, even commercially. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-50323-001.) Theories are among the most important tools of science. Lewin (1943) already noted "There is nothing as practical as a good theory." Although psychologists discussed problems of theory in their discipline for a long time, weak theories are still widespread in most subfields. One possible reason for this is that psychologists lack the tools to systematically assess the quality of their theories. Thagard (1989) developed a computational model for formal theory evaluation based on the concept of explanatory coherence. However, there are possible improvements to Thagard's (1989) model and it is not available in software that psychologists typically use. Therefore, we developed a new implementation of explanatory coherence based on the Ising model. We demonstrate the capabilities of this new Ising model of Explanatory Coherence (IMEC) on several examples from psychology and other sciences. In addition, we implemented it in the R-package IMEC to assist scientists in evaluating the quality of their theories in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

对 Maier 等人的“理论与解释一致性伊辛模型的比较”的更正。 （2023）。


报告 Maximilian Maier、Noah van Dongen 和 Denny Borsboom 所著的“理论与解释一致性伊辛模型的比较”中的错误（心理学方法，高级在线出版物，2023 年 3 月 2 日，np）。文章中错误地列出了版权归属，并且作者注释中错误地省略了 Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 许可免责声明。正确的版权是“© 2023 作者”，省略的免责声明如下：伦敦大学学院提供的开放获取资金：本作品根据知识共享署名 4.0 国际许可证获得许可（CC BY 4.0；https:// /creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0）。该许可证允许以任何媒介或格式复制和重新分发该作品，以及出于任何目的（甚至商业目的）改编该材料。 （以下原始文章摘要出现在记录 2023-50323-001 中。）理论是最重要的科学工具之一。 Lewin (1943) 已经指出“没有什么比好的理论更实用的了”。尽管心理学家长期以来一直在讨论其学科中的理论问题，但薄弱的理论在大多数子领域仍然普遍存在。造成这种情况的一个可能原因是心理学家缺乏系统评估其理论质量的工具。 Thagard (1989) 基于解释一致性的概念开发了一种用于形式理论评估的计算模型。然而，Thagard (1989) 的模型可能有改进之处，但心理学家通常使用的软件中不提供该模型。因此，我们基于伊辛模型开发了一种新的解释一致性实现。 我们通过心理学和其他科学的几个例子展示了这种新的伊辛解释一致性模型 (IMEC) 的功能。此外，我们还在 R 包 IMEC 中实现了它，以帮助科学家在实践中评估其理论的质量。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。