I'm working in an empirical field and have recently had a paper about a data collection effort and subsequent analysis thereof which was provisionally accepted, conditional on revisions. The negative remark most difficult to address is that the dataset I acquired was considered relatively small; How can I justify the small size of the dataset in a sound manner due to practical difficulties in acquiring data?
It is not possible for me to collect any more data in terms of money, manpower or even time... which all add up to more or less to "research capital". I have seen other datasets used which are not much bigger, but there are also corpora which are bigger by a significant margin. Likewise, some datasets are quite similar while others are completely unrelated to mine. Finally, while some corpora are freely available, for the majority of the papers in my field, it is quite rare for publications to explicitly state how one can acquire the data for their own purposes, and so the actual ability to even aquire data second-hand seems to be spotty.
Basically, I would need to reformulate the paragraph above into some form which I can put into the paper which needs revision; What can I do?