The article refers to me in this way:

A number of researchers have pointed out that teachers' interest in mathematics increased when introduced to the history of mathematics (e.g. Smestad, 2009; Siu, 2004; Phillippou & Chritou, 1998; Stander, 1989). However, these researchers maintained that teachers found no interest in using the history of mathematics within the curriculum.I do not think my data can be used to claim that "teachers' interest in mathematics increased when introduced to the history of mathematics" or that I claim that in the article. Neither can my article be used to suggest that "teachers found no interest in using the history of mathematics within the curriculum". Of course, I may be wrong, maybe indeed my article does suggest something else than what I intended. But I am more tempted to believe that this is a case of trying to fit too many references into too short a paper, so that the actual point of view of each reference is not retained.

I just wanted to get it off my heart. I don't think the journal would be interested in publishing a note to this effect, at least not without me paying for the privilege...