Perceived power dynamics in nursing education on students’ learning experience in Ghana

Collins Atta Poku; Veronica Adwoa Agyare; Samuel Baafi; Priscilla Yeye Adumoah Attafuah; Eunice Berchie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328359

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 25, 2025
Decision Letter - Paridhi Jha, Editor Dear Dr. Agyare, 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 Jun 16 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. 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 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, Paridhi Jha, PhD 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 you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: Data are all within the manuscript 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. 4. 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. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Title: I suggest your title should include Ghana Introduction: It is an important study. Thank you for taking the time to undertake this study. Methods: The most current text from Braun and Clarke prescribes a departure from “data saturation” to “information power.” Please look at p.28 of Braun and Clarke (2022). In line 152, you used “train nurse … training college…” but in line 234, you used “nursing education”. Your title includes nursing education. These phrases are contradictory. You cannot train nurses and educate them simultaneously. I suggest removing train/training from your work even though the students are enrolled in a diploma; the college is affiliated with a university that provides education, not training. Theoretical framework: The nursing profession is taught based on set principles and concepts. It would be helpful for readers, especially nursing students, to note that educators can be co-creators of knowledge, but there is a limit to this expectation. However, this concept may not be practicable in Ghana, but Global North countries have strict accreditation to ensure that the contents of accredited nursing degrees are taught as set out in the approved accreditation provisions. Competency standards are essential in nursing education and accreditation. On the other hand, educator-student relationships in the Global North countries significantly differ from their counterparts in the Global South countries like Ghana, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc. Educators in the Global South countries are viewed as small gods by students, and it is an entirely different situation in the Global North countries like the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. Please note that I do not discount power differentials between students and educators, but the powers are far less significant in the West. A paragraph should tease out these points so that nursing students would not feel devalued in their contributions in the classroom. Ethics: Study settings and sampling. How did you recruit the participants? Were the participants compelled to participate in the study? What information did you provide to the participants? How did you manage power dynamics in the recruitment process as researchers? Did you conduct the interview on college premises or at a location convenient to the participants? You invited participants who “voluntarily showed interest” How did you determine their voluntariness? Findings: The findings are quite worrying and traumatic to me reading them. I encourage your team to present your conclusions at Ghanaian conferences or other strategic audiences if they have not already been done. Discussion: Critical thinking skills need to be embedded in nursing education, and participatory/collaborative teaching promotes these skills. Yet still upholding safety, quality and competency standards that come with nursing accreditation or registrations. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is excellent, addressing an important topic with a robust methodology and exhibiting excellent drafting. Please present the main findings in tables or charts for better understanding. "Given that the data was collected from March 7th, 2018, to April 13th, 2018, why has the article been written now?" The final paragraph of the "Methodological Rigour" section should be written at the end of the article under the heading: "Authors' Contribution." Please highlight the strengths of your study. Please write the results section as a separate section. It is suggested that references published before 2015 be removed and replaced with newer ones. ****** 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: Adeniyi Olanrewaju Adeleye 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328359.r001
Revision 1
31 May 2025 Author Response 22nd May 2025 Ref: Title: “Perceived power dynamics in nursing education on students’ learning experience in Ghana” Journal: Dear Dr Jha, We are very grateful to you and the reviewers for the opportunity to revise our manuscript to improve it. Please kindly find the response below. Thank you! SN Reviewers Comments Responses Reviewer #1: 1 Title: I suggest your title should include Ghana ‘Ghana’ has been added to the title on page 1. 2 Methods: The most current text from Braun and Clarke prescribes a departure from “data saturation” to “information power.” Please look at p.28 of Braun and Clarke (2022). Thank you for the information. The method section has been revised on pages 2 and 8. 3 In line 152, you used “train nurse … training college…” but in line 234, you used “nursing education”. Your title includes nursing education. These phrases are contradictory. You cannot train nurses and educate them simultaneously. I suggest removing train/training from your work even though the students are enrolled in a diploma; the college is affiliated with a university that provides education, not training. This point is well noted and has been revised throughout the manuscript as recommended. 4 Theoretical framework: The nursing profession is taught based on set principles and concepts. It would be helpful for readers, especially nursing students, to note that educators can be co-creators of knowledge, but there is a limit to this expectation. However, this concept may not be practicable in Ghana, but Global North countries have strict accreditation to ensure that the contents of accredited nursing degrees are taught as set out in the approved accreditation provisions. Competency standards are essential in nursing education and accreditation. On the other hand, educator-student relationships in the Global North countries significantly differ from those of their counterparts in the Global South countries like Ghana, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc. Educators in the Global South countries are viewed as small gods by students, and it is an entirely different situation in the Global North countries like the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. Please note that I do not discount power differentials between students and educators, but the powers are far less significant in the West. A paragraph should tease out these points so that nursing students would not feel devalued in their contributions in the classroom. The write-up on the theoretical framework has been revised as recommended, page 7. 5 Ethics: Study settings and sampling. How did you recruit the participants? Were the participants compelled to participate in the study? What information did you provide to the participants? How did you manage power dynamics in the recruitment process as a researchers? Did you conduct the interview on college premises or at a location convenient to the participants? You invited participants who “voluntarily showed interest” How did you determine their voluntariness? All queries have been answered on page 10. 6 Findings: The findings are quite worrying and traumatic to me reading them. I encourage your team to present your conclusions at Ghanaian conferences or other strategic audiences if they have not already been done. Thank you. Well noted. 7 Discussion: Critical thinking skills need to be embedded in nursing education, and participatory/ collaborative teaching promotes these skills while upholding the safety, quality, and competency standards that come with nursing accreditation or registrations. Thank you. It is significant for professional growth and development. Reviewer #2: 1 The manuscript is excellent, addressing an important topic with a robust methodology and exhibiting excellent drafting. Please present the main findings in tables or charts for better understanding. Findings have been presented in Tabular format on page 12. 2 "Given that the data was collected from 7th March, 2018, to 13th April, 2018, why has the article been written now?" The authors had few personal challenges until recently, when they were able to assemble and complete the manuscript. Thank you. 3 The final paragraph of the "Methodological Rigour" section should be written at the end of the article under the heading: "Authors' Contribution." The final section of the "Methodological Rigour" section has been removed and written under the heading: "Authors' Contribution", page 25. 4 Please highlight the strengths of your study. Thank you. The strength of the study has been highlighted on page 24. 5 Please write the results section as a separate section. The findings of the study have been separate from the discussion. 6 It is suggested that references published before 2015 be removed and replaced with newer ones. The references have been updated as recommended. Thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328359.r002
Decision Letter - Paridhi Jha, Editor Perceived Power Dynamics in Nursing Education on Students’ Learning Experience in Ghana PONE-D-25-13650R1 Dear Dr. Agyare, 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, Paridhi Jha, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Excellent manuscript and thank you for undertaking this study. I am pleased you accepted my suggestions. Thank you. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is excellent, addressing an important topic with a robust methodology and exhibiting excellent drafting. Thank you. all my comments addressed. ****** 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: Adeniyi Olanrewaju Adeleye Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328359.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Paridhi Jha, Editor PONE-D-25-13650R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Agyare, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Paridhi Jha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328359.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 .