I was just curious for your thoughts.
I'm finishing a revise and resubmit for a paper with a co-author. I won't name the journal here, but the reviewer is fine - there's nothing in particular to complain about. But even with this good reviewer there are things he or she is suggesting we do that feel a little... tangential. I've gotten this impression from other reviewers - that they feel like they have to tell you something so sometimes they give you additional analyses that really don't add anything to the paper. I recently refereed an article and I suggested a fairly major additional analysis, but it felt necessary to me (I essentially said the author needed to redo the analysis with much more recent data which was available because by the time it was published the data used would be quite old). Perhaps my reviewers felt it was similarly necessary.
I try to accomodate as much as I can, but that may be because I'm a young guy that doesn't feel in a position push back. I have put my foot down on a few reviewer suggestions before. My co-author on this is much more in a "let's say nicely that we don't really need to do that" position. I think she's right on the merits, but I just feel like we've gotta do something for them (we do make lots of changes - I'm just talking about changes in the analysis). They never suggest that what we do is wrong. They just want us to do extra stuff.
How do you all handle revise and resubmits that you really don't agree with?
Report from Brownbackistan!
56 minutes ago