Perhaps this matter has already been talked out here on this thread, but the thread came to mind when I read this.....

I received the autumn 2011 edition of English Dance & Song in the post yesterday. Reading the Letters page, here is the response of the editor, Derek Schofield to the opening letter. If you read beyond what he says about this particular case, then I think what is says is admirable and germane to this discussion:-

Editor's note: this was one of several letters received about Chris Metherell's review of Ellis Rogers' book, The Quadrille, In some of the letters, the credentials of the reviewer, and my judgement as editor were called into question. The role of the editor, as I interpret it, with regard to reviews (particularly academic books) is to look for reviewers who have a knowledge of the subject matter, or who will bring their own experiences or expertise to bear on the subject of the book. Once commissioned, it is not the role of the editor to reject reviews on the basis that they are uncomplimentary to the item in question. Such an approach would smack of censorship. I always endeavour to find a reviewer who is likely to be sympathetic to the item to be reviewed. Chris Metherell has spent forty years researching, publishing and performing traditional dance. His specialism is step and clog dance, the divisor (with the Instep Research Team) of the Newcastle notation system for clog and step dances (which is now being used at post-graduate level for dance notation) and a visiting lecturer at the Irish World Academy of Music and Dance at the University of Limerick. His research interests inevitably overlap with the subject of the book he reviewed. In publishing a book or CD, and submitting it for review, the author/performer has to accept that reviews might range from the complimentary to the critical.