Malaria Journal operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.
- Peer review is designed to ensure that the research published is 'good science'.
- Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers have four possible options: accept; accept after minor revision; ask author(s) to make revisions and resubmit; reject because scientifically unsound.
- Publication of research articles by Malaria Journal is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers, who are also asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be.
- When asking for revisions, reviewers have three possible goals: to tighten the arguments based on existing data, to identify where more data are needed and to improve the clarity and coherence of the paper.
Edited by Marcel Hommel, Malaria Journal is supported by an expert Editorial Board.
2018 Journal Metrics
76 days to first decision for received manuscripts only
69 days to first decision for all manuscripts
130 days from submission to acceptance
9 days from acceptance for publication
3577 Altmetric mentions