I recently received some reviewer's comments on a paper I have under review. One reviewer (out of three) in particular has raised a large number of points. Some are very clear and target specific weaknesses in the paper (like 'do uncertainty calculations there' or 'are the findings robust to alternate choices of paramets x', etc). However, a number of issues stand out in variations of the following ways:
- They don't address weaknesses or omissions in the paper, rather they ask for additional explorative analyses that are outside the scope of the original paper.
- They are open-ended, in the sense that there's no clear conditions under which the issue has clearly been addressed. Often they are downright 'rabbit holes' that can't pausibly be 100% exhaustively explored.
- The paper is fairly clearly scoped in the issues ask for highly labor-intensive analyses outside of that scope, without arguing that this is necessary to answer the research questions.
In short, some of issues seem more like additional research ideas that actual issues with the paper. I'm uncertain how to best handle this. Can I just plainly state that while interesting to persue in future work, that is outside of the scope? Or would I be better off doing some short analyses (that I fear will only raise more questions, cf. point 2 above)? Or some third options? What are your experiences and advice regarding this type of situation?