I suggested in the post either the editor or the other reviewers makes the decision of which was the most constructive review.
The suggestion of going back and doing more work exists under the current peer review system. With my proposal you might even get suggestions of what work needs to be done and why you should do it.
In all the papers I have published I have only had a few reviewers agree on anything. The normal approach is you agree to all the reasonable demands even if you don’t personally like them and argue over the important one. Most of the time if the reviewers see you have moved some of the way towards their arbitrary demands they will let you hold onto the important ones.
You're right, I completely missed that. I quite like the idea of other reviewers picking which is best, although it may take some fiddling to avoid abuse.
I wasn't suggesting reviewers currently can't tell you to go back and do more work, quite the opposite - that I think it's a valuable if often too arbitrary requirement. But if the writer isn't picking which comments to respond to my point is moot anyway.
The suggestion of going back and doing more work exists under the current peer review system. With my proposal you might even get suggestions of what work needs to be done and why you should do it.
In all the papers I have published I have only had a few reviewers agree on anything. The normal approach is you agree to all the reasonable demands even if you don’t personally like them and argue over the important one. Most of the time if the reviewers see you have moved some of the way towards their arbitrary demands they will let you hold onto the important ones.