Unrealistic demands for minor revisions I just got a paper back from review, with a comment from the editor: 


  "As the suggestions are primarily editorial I deem the revisions required to be minor."


I have been given one week to revise the manuscript and write a response to both reviewers, but unfortunately both reviewers suggest me to do quite some extra work: additional analysis of data, additional numerical experiments, ....

As the editor describes the reviewers suggestions as "editorial", and I have been given only a week to revise the manuscript, I don't think that the editor expects me to do all that extra work (which would be impossible), but how do you deal with this in the response to the reviewers? Is it acceptable to basically say "interesting idea, impossible to do within a week"?
My guess is that the editor didn't read the reports carefully and didn't notice that the reviewers suggested significant extra work.

Contact the editor and point this out, and give an estimate of how much time you will need for revisions.  (Try to be conservative in this estimate so you don't put yourself in an unnecessary crunch.)

It's up to you to decide whether to actually do some or all of the extra work requested.  For anything you don't do, write a response explaining why you don't believe the extra work is warranted. (You might want to consult with colleagues to get another opinion.) The editor and reviewers will reconsider the paper and decide if it is acceptable with the changes you made.