Asked about Revising, reviewing and responding

A reviewer asks for an experiment you think is the wrong experiment. What do you write?

An answer that works

Accept the observation behind the request before addressing the request, because the observation is usually correct even when the proposed fix is not. Then narrow whatever claim prompted it, decline the specific experiment with a technical reason — what your existing runs varied, and why more of them would not answer the question being raised — and name the experiment that would settle it, adding it to the limitations. Conceding the claim while declining the method is a stronger position than either capitulating or arguing, and it rests on knowing exactly what your own experiment varied.

Then they push further

What are the ways a response loses a reviewer?

Agreeing warmly and changing nothing, which is visible immediately and reads as bad faith. Answering an adjacent question, which reads as evasion. And arguing about whether they should have been confused, which is the most tempting and never worth it: their confusion is data about the text and it is the only data of that kind you get before publication.

What gets marked up

Marked up for separating the observation from the requested remedy, and for naming what would settle it. Candidates who either fold on every point or defend every point both score badly.

Reading an answer is not being able to give one. The section that teaches this is Revising, reviewing and responding, 4 hours of Writing & communication.

Learn this properly

Also asked about Writing & communication

How do you structure a technical write-up?Why state limitations explicitly?Your experiment was one benchmark on one model. How do you state the result?How do you get useful feedback on a draft?How do you handle a reviewer who misunderstood your work?Show me how you would tighten a paragraph.How do you structure the experiments section of a paper?Tell me about something you have written or shared publicly about your work.