So, I just received my manuscript back from a journal and the editor said that I should "make the moderate revisions necessary as outlined in the referee reports and then send back the final manuscript".
One of the referees gave grammar, structural and content advice, while the other one said he does not believe this manuscript expands the current body of knowledge.
These are vastly different reports and the editors wording makes it seem like the paper is "nearly finished". How should I handle the referee reports? Obviously, I will make the straight forward corrections that ref 1 asks for, but:
How should I respond to a referee who believes the content of a paper contains no expansion of the current scientific knowledge in a field?