A reviewer pointed out that I should do an additional experiment to further validate my analysis. I agree this would be a good idea and would further strengthen the manuscript. However, I think it belongs to the category "a paper can always be better" and I don't think the additional experiment is essential to my argument.
The main reason I am not doing the additional experiment is that it would require additional funding that I don't have, and cannot acquire in the time the journal wants me to submit a revised version of the article (and even if they were more flexible, it would not be a good idea to wait two years to submit a revised version).
What is my best strategy when replying to the reviewer's comments? Should I
- point out that adding the additional experiment would require additional funding and that this would not be possible within a reasonable time frame?
- point out that the results are meaningful even without it?
I am a bit worried that saying "yes, that's a good idea, but I don't have the means to do it right now" would trigger the reply "Well, that's too bad for you, then the article is not suitable for publication". What's the best strategy here?