I received the decision letter for the manuscript I submitted to one of the top journal in the area of network security. The editor recommended the publication of article after minor revision but I disagree with few arguments made by a review and also highlighted by the editor in his own recommendation. I know it is acceptable to disagree the reviewer's comments but in my case editor also emphasized same argument which is made by the reviewer. The reviewer and editor appreciated the performance evaluation we made in article but also asked for adding the simulation. Even though we already implemented the scheme in an automated protocol analysis tool, presented the results and discussed comprehensively.
I am a bit confused because at this stage I don't want to miss the golden opportunity of publishing my work in a top notch journal. Maybe I am misunderstanding what exactly editor want to ask. I decided to write an email to editor but my colleague stopped me and said it will not give a positive impression.
What should be my next step?
- Implement the protocol scheme in another tool (which in my opinion is strange thing)?
- Submit a response with my revision that addresses the rest of the arguments and explains why I disagree with few comments (which might push our article for another cycle of revision or can be rejected)?
- Send a personal email to the editor asking for clarification (which might make a poor impression on the editor)?
- Something else?