PONE-D-24-50030Drivers and effects of fish-for-sex related single parenthood in a fishing coastal community in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kyei-Arthur,

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 Apr 12 2025 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,

Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo

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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

It took over 30 invitation to reviewers to secure the 2 reviews attached. Please take their feedback seriously. Your study is currently lacking a number of features to make it reproducible, including ethics approval, consent forms, interviews and questionnaire protocols, to name a few. The reviewers have pointed out sections of the paper that lack clarity, for example where it is unclear if your results apply to men, women or both. Given the sensitivity of the topic you're dealing with, an outmost attention to the detail is required, both in language and transparency with the methods and procedures performed on the field. Be clear when a result has internal or external validity(if it applies to a town, a region, or is generalizable to other social contexts e.g. other countries). I hope you find the reviewers comments constructive and help you improve the quality of your work.

Best,

Juan Rocha

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: Yes

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: Thank you for carrying out such an interesting study. However, I have some concerns.

1. The author(s) should kindly number the equation presented in their study.

2. The initial section of the study should fully present the abbreviation KEEA before using it. (see Line 76).

3. The author(s) indicate that a convergent parallel mixed-method approach was used in their study, but this is

not really seen in their work. It will be important for the author(s) in the material and methods section to

clearly show how the following were carried out under separate sections:

a. Quantitative design and methods—study design, population/sample was carried out.

b. Qualitative design and methods—a detailed write-up on the participants, the interview process, focus

group discussion, and how the results were analyzed.

c. The same approach in point b should be followed in the results section. The authors should clearly

present the findings from the quantitative approach as well as those from the qualitative approach.

4. In lines 97-99, the sentence is not clear. What ten associations are the author(s) referring to?

5. What is the composition of the focus group discussions?

6. The author(s) should clearly present the theoretical and practical implications of their work as well as future

directions.

Reviewer #2: The migration of fishers from one community to another is often associated with fish-for-sex (FFS) exchanges. = really is it? like all over the world or just in Ghana or where? I don't know if that stands true in like Ireland or Sweden for example so maybe you could nuance that first sentence

convergent parallel mixed-method approach= what is this? can you use accessible language so we can understand what you mean or else explain this in brackets so you don't have the audience confused

while the transcript of participants was analyzed thematically. = surely it was many transcripts?

that most fishers (63.1%) indicated the occurrence of FFS female single parenthood in Elmina. = I dont get it, you asked fishers (men?) if there was FFS in Elmina and 63.1% said yes? But they aren't single females with kids right?

Most fishers do not limit their work to a single fishing community. = on the world? which fishers? You mean to say that fishing and trade is transboundary? Or to hint to that?

To catch, trade, or engage in any fishing-related activity, it is essential to be located within or near a fishing area= this is a bit of a weird sentence? You could trade dry fish but not be near a "fishing area" at all...

Men typically move between fishing communities to perform off-shore fishing activities (such as catching fish at sea or working on boats and other equipment). In contrast, women often perform near-shore fishing activities (such as accompanying them to buy or sell fish across different fishing locations) [1-4]. = you need to give us the geographies where this holds true? are you talking about small-scale fisheries in Ghana or commercial fleets in russia or what? Women don't just "accompany" men to buy or sell fish.... Women in the industrial Ghanaian Tuna value chain finance large commercial vessels and are owners of vast trade businesses. I would nuance your sentence, the next sentence is great, and I would draw on more of the gender in fisheries work that for example GAF (gender in fisheries and aquaculture) members have done, you could reference more of them especially in the following sentence about interdependencies.

Risky sexual behaviour among fishers, such as multiple sexual partners and non-condom use [11-13], can lead to pregnancy and increase the risk of sexually transmitted infections for both fishers and their partners. = so the women partners are not fishers? I think you could clarify earlier who the "women" are as the men are given an identity as "fishers". Are they traders for example?

Also, women who engage in sexual intercourse with multiple partners may be uncertain about the paternity of their children [14]. = but also men with multiple partners wouldn't know if they have children and where, so its more balanced sentence.

Despite its far-reaching impact on women, this issue has received limited attention in fisheries literature, particularly in Ghana. = on women but also the children and it does not have an impact on men then?

KEEA - is this an acronym?

Qualitative methods allowed for an in-depth examination of fishers' mobility, safety concerns, and experiences of sexual harassment, = im still confused as to who the fishers are, are they the men only? so the lads were getting harassed by the women for sex or?

The number of fishers in Elmina is unknown = I would say why e.g. due to lack of government interest in small-scale artisanal fishers or lack of national statistics etc. Its not unknown for no reason, its political

I would contextualize this study earlier by describing the fisheries and the communities in one or two sentances in the intro- like are we talking about small-scale fisheries? or big industrial bait boats or? The reader could then much easier picture the context. And if you are talking about SSF then you can draw on all the references for that work in Ghana and west Africa and globally that highlights their importance but complete lack of political support- hence why we end up with women having to do what they do to survive. Right now the paper up till now is a bit "dry", we dont know the who and you don't situate the paper very well yet in the wealth of literature on SSF or gender in fisheries.

Table 1: Participants of the Key Informant Interviews = We need to know the genders so as readers we can be sure you didn't talk to a bunch of men about women's issues.

The same goes for the quantitative data who were the respondents? We need an overview of their profiles, ages and genders. It seems you only interviewed "fishers" ? so only men?? what about the female fish traders or the women who are getting the FFS??

I need more details on the ethics- this are very sensitive topics and information- we need more information on how your participants gave consent and a copy of the consent form in appendix and the plain language statement that informed them of the project and all the details i.e. what you would do with their data, data storage. We also need a lot more details on participant recruitment, for all sectors not just fishers.

Data analysis- is one paragraph? we dont even know the language the interviews and discussions were done in? who did the analysis? we need a lot more details on this step... what were the themes for analysing thematically? how was this done? where? What are narrative descriptions? how were they chosen?

Results= ok now we are getting the genders and the who of the people- I would put this way before as the reader goes through the whole first part not know "who"

Table 2= needs more explanation- what is a fish catch group, what gears are used by what genders, what are the main species? what religions? what does the post-harvest group do?

table 3= so it wasnt ffs female headed households you were talking to? it was just fishers estimating if they know any single women with kids that come from FFS? i don't fully get it... what about the single women with kids? were they participants and if not why?

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with both male and female participants = at the same time???

I find it difficult to comprehend the girls' actions. How can one woman have three or more boyfriends in this small town? This is why many of them don't know the fathers of their children. All they care about is having sexual relations with fishermen after their expedition, a time when they have a lot of money to spend on women. (FGD 1, Female fisher) = but i thought they were having sex to get the fish to trade or for home consumption? How is that not understood? In fact I think FFS needs more explanation than one sentence in the intro- what is the fisher used for where does it go and what species fresh or then dried here in elmina? and why is it done? why do women have sex for fish- like this needs to be properly presented so it doesnt look like they are just out having multiple partners for fun.

Many women in the fishing community are unmarried and have no marital commitments, allowing them to have as many partners as they desire despite societal disapproval of such behaviour. = but they are trying to get fish to sell or feed their kids right?? These quotes are putting a lot of blame on women without a proper explanation of why FFS

The discussion could do with citing of literature beyond Ghana and placing the study in the global discourse on FFS or even branching out to other products as there is a lot out there, but its very interesting to take the impacts on the kids into account, thats a power of this study. And those findings are discussed at a beyond ghana level so thats super interesting to read, about the generational issues of FFS. But i think the discussion needs to widen and also make some higher level links to the drivers of FFS e.g. politics, environmental change, lack of socio-economic supports in SSF etc.

**********

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.

Drivers and effects of fish-for-sex related single parenthood in a fishing coastal community in Ghana

PONE-D-24-50030R1

Dear Dr. Kyei-Arthur,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Both reviewers exprese gratitude for your due diligence in addressing their comments, and both of them recommend acceptance for publication. Congratulations on your work!

Best regards,

Juan

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: The author(s) have conducted an interesting study, and I would like to thank them for taking the time to address all the concerns raised about their paper. I accept the response they have provided in relation to the concerns I raised.

Reviewer #2: The paper has significantly improved, it's so good now! Reads so well and has all the details I wanted as a reader to understand the study plus the nuances of the gender dimensions and presentation of results. Thanks for addressing everything.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********