Publishing psychological research has become an increasingly complicated and demanding task. The journals are constantly increasing their demand. In order to publish papers, researchers are in constant struggle to meet these requirements. Journals also invest a large amount of effort in marketing and impact-increasing strategies. It seems that, in some cases, impact factor and rejection rates are becoming more important than the research published.

Within this era, high-impact journals have gained an extraordinary amount of admiration among (many) researchers and findings published there are sometimes believed to be the ultimate truth. Even in light of obvious contradictive replications, reviewers and editors have defended previously published finding with comments such as "[...] is a fact". Unfortunately, this quote is not made up and it reflects an unfortunate reality when it comes to scientific work. The statement above is not what we have been taught in classes on theory of science. We were taught that scientific truth can never be absolute and that openness to criticism is the key to scientific progress. One might wonder where the heritage of Popper and Kuhn is in contemporary personality and social psychology research. Today, personality and social psychology as a scientific field is rather fractured and contains little space for open scientific debate and even lesser for expressing critical views. This can not be considered as healthy by anyone.

Also, without having it as an explicit policy, most journals do not encourage replications and minor extensions or modifications of previous studies. In the absence of published replications and modifications, the scientific community may be biased to believe that earlier findings are set in stone. When established journals do not undertake the task of communicating replications and objections to previous findings, this calls for alternative channels. PSPC is aimed to help fill this gap.

We believe that there is a need for a forum to, comment on theoretical or methodological issues in previous research, connect pieces of related research, let unpublished data and studies to be communicated, and to allow the other point of view to be expressed openly. We believe that such a forum will contribute to advance the field and sincerely hope that PSPC is a positive step in this direction.