Active or Passive Voice in International research journal, within the field of microorganism? I have been composing the International journal for microbiology research.  I learn that research journal should consist of active voice not passive, but I find that the previous researchers for related subject mainly used passive voice. 
How should I consider?


Examples:


This genus is characterized by two types of conidia called α–conidia (fusiform) and β–conidia (filiform).  [I think it is valid.  Please correct me if I could change it to active voice]
Diaporthe sp was reported causing dieback of rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) (Van Rensburg et al. 2006)
[Van R et al 2006 reported Diaporthe caused dieback of rooibos (Aspalathus l.)?]
A novel Phomopsis sp  was reported as a weed (Carthamus lanatus) pathogen and may be used as a biocontrol agent (Ash et al. 2010). 
[Ash et al. 2010 clarified that a novel Phomopsis sp as a weed (Carthamus lanatus) pathogen may be used as a biocontrol agent?]



*** Note - 9/4/2013:
Thank you so much, I appreciate the clarity from everyone. 

I also did online research and learn this (may it help those who have the similar problem):


  "Many writers are torn between whether they should write the paper
  in the active or passive voice. In the former, the subject performs
  the action; in the latter, the subject receives the action. Too
  much use of the active voice has the tendency to make the text
  monotonous because of too many first-person references. On the other
  hand, overuse of the passive voice can cause the tone of the paper to
  be dry, boring and even pompous. To ensure that the text is more
  lively and readable, it is best to try and strike a balance. Consider
  the following example:
  
  We used eosin-methylene blue agar plates for the preliminary isolation
  of P. aeruginosa. The bacteria were Gram-negative bacilli, and motile.
  The results for oxidase and catalase activities were negative.
  Additional experiments showed that the bacteria did not ferment
  glucose, galactose, maltose or lactose (Table 2). Based on these
  results, we concluded that the organism had an oxidative metabolism.
  
  Try translating this in to an entirely passive or active tone.
  You’ll notice that the creative mix of both voices makes this narrative not only lively and engaging but also states the results in
  a clear, confident and unambiguous manner."
The choice between active and passive voice is mainly a matter of taste. As a writer, you are entitled to a certain degree of liberty in your stylistic choices. Even within the generally tight constraints of scientific and academic writing, there is no established dogma on passive vs. active voice, and you will find people advocating (some very strongly) both for and against the use of the passive voice.

Duke’s Graduate School Scientific Writing Resource has a good summary of the pros and cons of passive and active voices. In particular, it lists the position advocated in some high-level style guides, editorials, and other essays of note.

I think the current trend is toward a diminution of use of the passive voice. The reasons are summed up nicely by Randy Moore (The American biology teacher):


  Most scientists use passive voice either out of habit or to make themselves seem scholarly, objective or sophisticated. Scientists have not always written in passive voice. First-person pronouns such as I and we began to disappear from scientific writing in the United States in the 1920s when active voice was replaced by today's inflexible, impersonal and often boring style of scientific writing.


The main argument used in favour of passive voice is that it promotes objective statements, rather than focusing on the actor. However, removing the mention of the actor in the text does not actually prevent subjectivity in the experiments: even if I write “the sample was smeared until it reached a thickness of 1 µm”, somewhat actually did smear the sample (and could have screwed it by going too slow or too fast). So the counter-argument is that passive voice does not promote objectivity, but only the appearance of objectivity.

The main argument in favour of active voice is that it makes for shorter, clearer, less boring text.



I love that anecdote from Rupert Sheldrake (School Science Review):


  “The test tube was carefully smelled.” I was astonished to read this sentence in my 11-year-old son's science notebook. At primary school his science reports had been lively and vivid. But when he moved to secondary school they became stilted and artificial.