Is it acceptable to say that a reviewer's concern is not going to be addressed because then the paper would be too long? It is my understanding that philosophy papers have less chance of being published if they are over 7,000 or 8,000 words long. But at the same time we philosophers often complain that a given author's work was not considered in a manuscript. So what should one do when a reviewer asks for consideration of a whole additional facet or philosopher in a paper? Is it understood that in that case, the author can substantially increase the wordcount of her manuscript? Even over the limit stated in the submission guide? (I've seen published papers of 13,000 words in a journal that indicates a limit of 10,000).
This is the kind of thing you ask the editor about. "If I include this philosopher's view, the manuscript's length will increase by roughly 40%. Are you sure?" If the editor says yes, you're in the clear - they are clearly going to waive the word limit. If the editor says nevermind, you're also in the clear - even if the reviewer objects, the editor's on your side and can overrule the reviewer's objections if the reviewer recommends reject.