This does happen a lot in science. Between fields and even within a field, for example a biologist discovers a handy 'new' data structure that is useful for sto

This does happen a lot in science. Between fields and even within a field, for example a biologist discovers a handy 'new' data structure that is useful for storing DNA samples. Which is simply a basic binary tree. As the reviewers of a biology paper are usually biologists and not computer scientists, they might not notice the obvious. Similarly, within computer science I've seen cases like this as well. A researcher in scientific visualization built an awesome visualization algorithm based on a 'new' data structure. Then it turned out this data structure was already discovered in the 90's by a theoretical computer scientist. In neither of my cases it undermined the underlying research, it's basically just a missing reference. It's inherent in science that some things are rediscovered once in a while and it is very hard to follow articles from a completely other field. However, something as blatant as rediscovering integration reviewers from each field should have noticed....