I am preparing a rebuttal letter to reviewers and the editor about one of my manuscripts. The reviewers were concerned about the results and they suggest running the same models but using another way to calculate the response variable. I am totally fine to explore the data with other ways to make results more robust and reliable. However, the results from the methodology suggested by the reviewers are not the same as the other one. This makes me feel dubious about the conclusion drawn from my results.
Although in the first version of the manuscript I had a sharp conclusion based on the initial results, now I realized that I should tone down the message after exploring the data in different ways.
I was wondering if you had a similar experience like this and how did you manage to your rebuttal letter?