A reply to commentaries on “Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors”

We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments that we have received in reaction to our focal article (Sackett et al., 2023). Generally, the commentaries could be divided into two groups. The largest group of commentaries suggested ways to expand or refine our assertions. This group thus saw our paper as a starting point and offered various new insights. Another smaller group of commentaries was more critical. A few even argued strongly that the original paper was in error and its conclusions were wrong. With very limited page space, this is not the place for a point-by-point response to each of the commentaries. Thus, we first briefly review some of the suggestions of the first group and then focus more on three critical commentaries, given readers likely want to know whether we accept the criticisms offered or have alternative perspectives. We want to emphasize that although we offer our rationales for why we at times take positions that differ from those offered by commentators, we do not claim to be the last word on the issues at hand. We present our rationales to permit the reader to compare the perspectives taken by us and by the commentators. And issues raised by these differing perspectives will, we hope, prompt research to help resolve areas of disagreement.