I am wondering if I should follow the advice of my co-advisor or a relative of mine who is also a researcher and used to write a scientific paper in the same field (but currently with less experience then my co-advisor).
I will make it a bit more clear:
- I am a Ph.D. student in CS, specifically in networking, I wrote a scientific paper that I have sent to an Elsevier journal.
- Last month, the journal replied to my submitted paper and requested a major revision; so I know that I have a bunch of rework to do.
- One of three reviewers was complaining about the contribution and evaluations/simulations that I have done, while the other two didn’t complain in the same manner.
- Following to this and in order to make it clearer for the complaining reviewer, my co-advisor advised me to add a small simulation/evaluation to my paper to clarify the contribution and justify why we considered various scenarios in terms of scale.
- In the meanwhile, I asked a relative for help, he said that it is not a good approach to add this simulation/evaluation since no reviewer asked for it, and could be harmful to my work/my chances to being published.
While I can agree with my relative about adding a non-requested work, my intuition pushes me to follow my co-advisor, since this is a little work that can clarify, justify more the need for considering various scenarios (which I have done and the reviewer didn’t understand why I did it).