> then reinventing these methods really is novel, unpublished, and relevant information that is valuable to publish. That's if you can get a journal to publish

> then reinventing these methods really is novel, unpublished, and relevant information that is valuable to publish. That's if you can get a journal to publish your results, isn't it? I can imagine a reviewer recommending a strong reject on the grounds that a submission is already "well-known" by virtue of having a commercial pendant available. Reverse engineering is impressive, but alas provides no novelty.