Accuracy in amicus curiae briefs and in commentaries: Reply to Cobb et al. (2025), Dvoskin et al. (2025), and Kovera (2025).

In this reply to commentaries, we argue that amicus briefs should identify when findings are based on simulation studies, clarify that we did not propose that American Psychological Association amicus briefs must be perfect, and refute notions that our coding was opaque or that following legal (i.e., Bluebook) style absolves psychologists from following American Psychological Association standards. We agree with the commentary by Cobb et al. (2025) that citation inaccuracies are a threat to our discipline's integrity that can, and should, be reduced. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).