It is, and I enjoy reading it, but, I think you need to get used to the breadth of what it covers, i.e some very good "photography" to some that is possibly less good photographs, but still important social documents. So still actually "good" photography within the context of how it's being used .At least I think that is the best way of explaining it.
I was a bit disappointed with the first issue, but I thinking I was expecting something that it was never meant to be. ie a version of Studies in Photography that focused on Nature.
The editor (who might actually be co-editor) was the Chief Curator of Photography at the National Galleries of Scotland, who I seem to remember described herself as a Social Historian. She is known for her extensive studies of Hill and Adamson's, who are arguably the first documentary photographers in the world.
I have a few of her books, including one (maybe two) on Hill and Adamson, and a bit of a tome, she co-authored, "Scottish Photography: the first 30 years"