diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 0a2c89d..bee041f 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ \section{Existing Implementations}%
 
 A number of successful RSE units have already been established in Germany and many more exist in other countries, especially the UK and the US\@.
 In order to understand the service portfolio of these existing RSE units, we conducted a small survey that received a total of twelve responses from Germany, the UK and the US\@.
+This very small sample size does of course not allow any quanitative analysis about RSE departments.
 We asked RSE units for the composition of their service portfolio --- a number of illustrative examples from the results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:survey}.
 The interested reader finds the full data we received in~\cite{datapub}.
 
diff --git a/review_answers/review_2_answers.md b/review_answers/review_2_answers.md
index f47cd40..c8f26d3 100644
--- a/review_answers/review_2_answers.md
+++ b/review_answers/review_2_answers.md
@@ -261,5 +261,6 @@ The sentence "By unifying previously scattered RSE efforts into a coordinated ap
 > The paper has no separate "Limitations" section. This is a major flaw for a position paper that makes strong claims. Add a section after Conclusions or before Data Availability that explicitly lists: small survey size, lack of longitudinal data, focus on Germany only, no cost-benefit analysis, and no comparison to alternative models (e.g., fully decentralized RSE support).
 
 **Answer:**
+We added a sentence about the small sample size not allowing quantitative analysis to the manuscript. Regarding the strength of claims made in the manuscript, we again refer to this being an opinion article.
 
 ---