Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and its legalisation in Africa: Insights from tertiary-level students in Ghana

Francis Acquah; Charles Owusu-Aduomi Botchwey; Prince Owusu Adoma; Emmanuel Kumah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287726

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2023
10 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu, Editor PONE-D-23-03818Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Related Legal Issues Arising in Africa: Insights from the Graduates in GhanaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Acquah, 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 May 25 2023 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: https://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, Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu 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 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. The topic is relevant at this time and thus worth writing on. However it appears to be misleading. Perhaps it could be reframed to reflect the write up as the study seems to establish the perception of tertiary students on LGBTI and its Legalization. The title '... legal issues arising' appears to indicate a legal digestion of the bill that has been presented before the parliament of Ghana. 2. The problem is unclear. What is the gap in literature? What is the issue about a country passing a law on LGBTI? It appears the study sort to ascertain the perception of tertiary students on LGBTI and the attempt to legalize it in Ghana. The authors should concentrate on looking at the perception tertiary students have on LGBTI and the on the attempt to criminalize it. The query of the authors as to whether religion, health and cultural beliefs are the adequate in criminalizing LGBT is a non-starter as these form the basis of laws the world over. 3.The authors appear to be confused about their respondents. The word Graduate student refers to people pursuing a second or third degree. In the paper, they refer to their respondents as graduate students. Which is different from the word graduate in the title. The also indicated some of their respondents were yet to graduate. This makes them students. Thus the use of the word Graduate in the title does not correspond with the actual respondents who took part in the study. Perhaps the appropriate word to use is Tertiary level students. 4. The authors mentioned two theories that informed the study but failed to demonstrate how these theories provide any logical explanation to their findings. The theories were not used to explain the conceptual framework developed. Neither did the theories inform the questionnaire that was developed and used to collect data. Reviewer #2: The manuscript borders on a topical issue under discussion globally in various religious and cultural settings. And although the topic seems to be topical in the media, the authors do not clearly define the issue gap based on the literature, to clearly show what the intended contribution to the literature is. The study mentions that there are a number of studies in this area, yet no study has been conducted on people’s opinion. Questions such as what makes an opinion study relevant to expand knowledge in this area and how does this contribute to the existing state of literature in this area is not clearly articulated. The choice of graduate students as the subject of study is not properly justified, to understand why their perspective matters and how their perspective would expand knowledge under this gap. Also, these students were explained to be from the Central and southern parts of Ghana. The reason for the choice was not explained and justified. The methodology used under the study is appropriate, yet a pretested and existing scales for assessing the factors under review would have greatly enriched the reliability of the constructs. The discussion of the results has not been rigorously done, to draw out the theoretical implications based on the theory employed in the study. Also, the discussion section gives a general summary of findings, without an in-depth reflection with the existing empirics. Therefore, the paper lacks insights into the empirical implications of the findings beyond just the statistics discussed. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287726.r001
Revision 1
25 Apr 2023 Author Response Dear Editor, RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS We acknowledge the complexity and various schools of taught on the topic in real life and hence appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions in improving the content of the paper. We have addressed all the issues raised and believe the current version of the paper meets the journal’s publication requirements. We are very grateful for this wonderful opportunity to publish in your highly esteemed journal. Please find below our responses to the issues raised: Reviewer #1 Comment 1: The topic is relevant at this time and thus worth writing on. However, it appears to be misleading. Perhaps it could be reframed to reflect the write up as the study seems to establish the perception of tertiary students on LGBTI and its Legalization. The title '... legal issues arising' appears to indicate a legal digestion of the bill that has been presented before the parliament of Ghana. Response: Please the topic has been reframed and it currently reads as follows: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and its Legalisation in Africa: Insights from Tertiary-Level Students in Ghana Comment 2: The problem is unclear. What is the gap in literature? What is the issue about a country passing a law on LGBTI? It appears the study sort to ascertain the perception of tertiary students on LGBTI and the attempt to legalize it in Ghana. The authors should concentrate on looking at the perception tertiary students have on LGBTI and the on the attempt to criminalize it. The query of the authors as to whether religion, health and cultural beliefs are the adequate in criminalizing LGBT is a non-starter as these form the basis of laws the world over. Response: Please the problem statement has further been clarified in the “focus of the present study” section. Please see page 8, lines 206-214 of the revised manuscript for this information. Comment 3: The authors appear to be confused about their respondents. The word Graduate student refers to people pursuing a second or third degree. In the paper, they refer to their respondents as graduate students. Which is different from the word graduate in the title. The also indicated some of their respondents were yet to graduate. This makes them students. Thus, the use of the word Graduate in the title does not correspond with the actual respondents who took part in the study. Perhaps the appropriate word to use is Tertiary level students Response: Please at the time of data collection, the participants had completed university though not officially done their graduation at their respective universities hence the reference of respondents as graduates nevertheless the term has been appropriately changed to the inclusive reviewer’s recommendation as “tertiary-level students”. Comment 4: The authors mentioned two theories that informed the study but failed to demonstrate how these theories provide any logical explanation to their findings. The theories were not used to explain the conceptual framework developed. Neither did the theories inform the questionnaire that was developed and used to collect data. Response: Please the literature together with the theories informed the conceptual framework. The three predictors’ cultural values, perceived health implication and religious belief were informed by the African Heritage Theory, Health Belief Model and Religious concept of sin respectively. Due to conciseness in the writing of the discussion section we fail however to delineate how the theories provide any logical explanation to the findings of the study as mentioned by the reviewer. These comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript in the discussion section (please see lines 522-567) together with some amendment in “Theoretical and Conceptual Background of the Study” section Reviewer #2 Comment 1: The manuscript borders on a topical issue under discussion globally in various religious and cultural settings. And although the topic seems to be topical in the media, the authors do not clearly define the issue gap based on the literature, to clearly show what the intended contribution to the literature is. The study mentions that there are a number of studies in this area, yet no study has been conducted on people’s opinion. Questions such as what makes an opinion study relevant to expand knowledge in this area and how does this contribute to the existing state of literature in this area is not clearly articulated. Response: Please the problem statement has been further clarified in the “focus of the present study” section (Please see page 8, lines 206-214). Reviewer; The study mentions that there are a number of studies in this area, yet no study has been conducted on people’s opinion.” We indicated that “some aspects of the subject of interest in the country have been studied. As cited, these include studies such as “Homophobic Violence in Ghana”, “Perceptions of the Youth towards Homosexuality in Ghana,” and a few others. We did not necessarily mean “opinion studies specifically on LGBTI legislation.” Meanwhile, a greater distinction has been made in the updated manuscript. Comment 2: The choice of graduate students as the subject of study is not properly justified, to understand why their perspective matters and how their perspective would expand knowledge under this gap. Also, these students were explained to be from the Central and southern parts of Ghana. The reason for the choice was not explained and justified. Response: Please the choice of graduate students as the subject of study is further clarified and justified in the updated manuscript in the “focus of the present study” section. Tertiary-level students are appropriate for the study because we consider them to be more tolerable and abreast with the current LGBTI issues in Ghana. Detailed justification for our choice of students could be found from line 222 to 228 of the revised manuscript. The rationale for recruiting students from the central and southern parts of Ghana is that these geographical areas capture almost all of the ethnic groups in the country. Thus, the choice ensured adequate representation of the various ethnic groups in the country. Please see lines 270 and 271 for the addition of this information to the revised manuscript. Comment 3: The methodology used under the study is appropriate, yet a pretested and existing scales for assessing the factors under review would have greatly enriched the reliability of the constructs. Response: We wish we could have gotten pretested and existing scales that also take into account the nature of the study setting to assess the factors in the study. Unfortunately, such scales were not available. Comment 4: The discussion of the results has not been rigorously done, to draw out the theoretical implications based on the theory employed in the study. Also, the discussion section gives a general summary of findings, without an in-depth reflection with the existing empirics. Therefore, the paper lacks insights into the empirical implications of the findings beyond just the statistics discussed. Response: Please the updated manuscript now delineates how the theories provide logical explanation to the findings of the study and possible future implications. Please see lines 523-568 of the revised manuscript for this revision. Thank you https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287726.r002
12 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu, Editor Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and its Legalisation in Africa: Insights from Tertiary-Level Students in Ghana PONE-D-23-03818R1 Dear Dr. Acquah, 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, Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Anita Asiwome Baku ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287726.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu, Editor PONE-D-23-03818R1 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and its Legalisation in Africa: Insights from Tertiary-Level Students in Ghana Dear Dr. Acquah: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Godfred Matthew Yaw Owusu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287726.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .