Title: "He showed me a knife and said they would kill me and no one would know or care”: a
qualitative study into the experiences of transnational sex workers in Ghana.
Version: 1 Date: 22 Apr 2025
Reviewer:  Felix Mensah
Reviewer's report:
I am glad to be invited to review the study on Intersectional Vulnerabilities of Nigerian
Transnational Female Sex Workers in Ghana. The study embodies strength in its originality,
topical relevance, and commitment to amplifying the voices of a marginalized and often invisible
population. It draws attention to how gender, nationality, and legal precarity intersect to expose
transnational sex workers to layered forms of violence and exploitation.
However, the manuscript will benefit from structural tightening, more critical engagement with
literature, and greater methodological clarity as outlined below:
Introduction
1. The introduction would benefit from a stronger use of active voice. The current reliance on
passive constructions weakens the author’s confidence and affects the overall clarity and impact
of the section. Additionally, the frequent use of “with” to form compounded sentences makes
the text harder to follow. The author should revise these constructions to improve readability
and flow.
2. The background section would also benefit from restructuring into clear thematic sub-sections.
This will improve readability and allow the reader to easily follow the key dimensions of the
problem.
3.  Although the text highlights intersecting vulnerabilities, it does not frame the discussion with
a guiding concept. A clear conceptual lens would help anchor the discussion and prepare the
reader for a qualitative inquiry.
4. The final paragraph introduces the study’s aim, but it reads more like a summary than a clear
justification. Frame this as a response to the identified gaps.
Methods
1. The methods would benefit from a brief mention of the research team's composition or
positionality. For a phenomenological study, it is important to acknowledge how researcher
identity and relationships may have influenced access, trust, or interpretation.
2. While thematic analysis is appropriate, the authors should briefly describe how codes were
developed (inductive or deductive), whether coding was done manually or with software,
and how themes were validated (e.g., peer debriefing or intercoder checks). To strengthen
transparency, authors should provide concrete examples of initial codes and explain how these
codes were grouped to form specific themes.
3. The mention of compensation appears at the end. Move this earlier in the ethical considerations
section and explain how the amount was determined to avoid undue inducement.
Discussion
In the discussion section, you need to adopt a more assertive tone by using the active voice
consistently. This will make your arguments clearer and more authoritative. Being confident in
how you present and interpret your findings strengthens the impact of the study and demonstrates
ownership of the analysis.
Conclusion
The current conclusion merges the study’s main findings with its limitations and implications.
To improve clarity and structure, the authors should write a brief standalone conclusion that
summarizes the key findings. Then, they should create separate subsections to discuss the
implications and limitations of the study in detail.