Welcome to the Reporting Standards for BNs questionnaire testing environment.

Our team has been developing a reporting guideline standard for Bayesian networks. Our aim is to ensure that models are correctly understood and replicable. Specifically, the aims of this effort are to support and facilitate:

• Reproducibility
• Transparency
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

We also expect a range of additional benefits, including education (particularly for those new to BN modelling), discoverability of models and techniques, reusability, quality and reliability, and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

One of the key outcomes of this work is a questionnaire, that can be accessed via this website, where users can provide details about their model and the processes used to develop and validate it.

At this stage of developing the standards, we would greatly appreciate any feedback you could provide. We plan to report on the feedback in aggregate in publications, but your information will be kept confidential. There is the possibility that we may contact you to ask permission to publish individual quotes.

The website consists of four main sections:

• Model Information: High-level details about the model, such as title and authors.
• Structure: Qualitative aspects of the model.
• Parameters: Quantitative aspects of the model.
• Evaluation: Validation and verification of the model.

When testing this site, if possible, please think of a real model to which you contributed, then go through each page and provide a very brief answer. You will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the questionnaire at the end of each section, as well as at the very end of the questionnaire.

As you review, please keep in mind the following:

• What questions do you think are missing that would be needed to reproduce your model/study?
• Are the questions clear and easy to answer for your model/study?
• How useful is the help text associated with each question?
• Are there any techniques or concepts that should be described in the help text that are currently missing? Are there techniques or concepts which are too specialised to be useful?
• Are there are any issues with the help text? (e.g. length, issues with recommended methods, biased descriptions, etc.)
• Are the sections appropriate? (i.e. the way in which the questions are divided up)

A few things that are not currently a focus for us include: usability, length/burden and format.

We very much appreciate your help!