Well you are very kind (and of course you know me and the quality of the data I produce) but when a statement appears in this paper like
"For the recent eclipse, EW measurements
by Leadbeater & Stencel (2010, 2012) suggested a stepwise
increase ............. This is not confirmed by the K I observations
of Potravnov & Grinin (2013) nor by our data in this paper."
is endorsed by someone of Strassmeier's status is it rather damaging to my paper.
Despite what is said in this statement there is in fact no EW data for this line in their paper and as far as I can tell from talking to Lothar no data is available, though Lothar has offered to make some measurements.
Citing Potravnov and Grinin's paper in support is also completely incorrect as this paper contains very few measurements of K7699A EW, certainly not enough to identify any deviations from a smooth curve and they made no comparison with my results at all. In fact I collaborated with Potravnov and Muthumarripan earlier this year, combining my complete data set with their partial sets to produce the new paper I mentioned above which shows good agreement between the 3 data sets.
Only my dataset has sufficient coverage to identify the "steps" however.
The referees for this paper failed to do their job as this statement should have either been removed or some evidence in support included.