PONE-D-21-16603

Exploring the reasons for novice nurse educators’ transition from practice to academia in Ghana

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Laari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Khatijah Lim Abdullah, DClinP, MSc., BSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting this article. I believe that you have put a huge effort to come out with this paper. Congratulations. Here are my minor comments that you may want to consider:

1. While you managed to present the study background and discussion in an acceptable manner, the majority of the cited studies came from developed countries (e.g US, Canada, UK, Australia). Adding some information on experience of novice nurse educator in low middle-income countries would be helpful to set up background of the study/ improve the the discussion section.

2. The abbreviation of “HTI” was inconsistently used with some abbreviation and some full spelling.

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: Review comments to author:

First of all, congratulations on writing a paper on a subject that may not only apply to the nursing profession, but also to others and the perspective of Ghana is directly related to policy implementation.

However, I do have some burning questions needing answers to and this may require some revision from the authors:

1. Has the manuscript underwent the qualitative research checklist? The COREQ 32-item checklist should be adhered and submitted along as part of the submission as they will become part of the following questions inquiries.

2. Introduction: please describe the nursing profession in Ghana to give an idea of the characteristics of the profession, composition and tie-ins to the issues highlighted in the manuscript.

3. Line 123-125: It was stated there were 5 state-owned training centres located in the 4 regions. Are there non-state owned training centres and if they are, why are they not included in the study? If there are only state-owned training centres, why are only 3 selected? Why not all 5? Please justify.

4. Line 131-133: Why are researchers selecting “the most informative” participants? How does the study handle selection bias for this study? Does the researcher have prior relationships with the participants? How do they identify participants who are “most informative”?

5. Line 141-142: What are the domains to be explored of the developed IDI guides and what probes are used to further explore those issues? How were they developed? Kindly explain in detail.

6. Line 143-145: Was the pilot done in the same 3 institutions and were the same pilot participants recruited in the actual data collection? When was the pilot conducted and IDI guide revised?

7. Line 191-192: When was consent taken and what is the coverage of this consent? Is it just for the interview or did it cover anything else? Please detail further.

8. Line 287-292 & 325-329: The two highlighted quotes coming from the same NNE5 sounds contradicting. In line 287-292, NNE5 claims not being allowed to do anything without supervision but line 327-329, NNE5 claims to enjoy freedom in teaching clients about antenatal care. So there is a degree of autonomy that is actually given but claim without by the same participant. Kindly revise.

9. Line 362: “wanting to make a difference in nursing (13), and to educate the next generation of nurses (11)” – there are no verbatims in any of the 4 domains in the results that supported these two reasons. Please revise or add the supporting verbatims and statements in the results section.

10. Conclusion – With the concluded results, how would the information is to be used by the relevant stakeholders and what action should be recommended to tackle the issue?

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Exploring the reasons for novice nurse educators’ transition from practice to academia in Ghana

PONE-D-21-16603R1

Dear Dr. Laari,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Khatijah Lim Abdullah, DClinP, MSc., BSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE