2 added 16 characters in body
source | link

As your three-image method takes a new approach, it is novel in the academic sense: It adds to the existing knowledge. Thus you should be able to publish a paper on this, though probably not in a high-ranking journal (unless you blatantly underestimated the advantages of your method). The rationale for this (whichis the following and you can describemay use it to motivate your method in your paper) is this: Your new approaches may inspire other methods which in turn may drastically outperform existing ones or yield entirely new information.

You could write the paper directly in this tone, not focussing on the method you are presenting but on the fact that you can extract the information your method (and the others) yield in a new way. In this context, you should probablymay consider not presentpresenting your method primarily as a method, but as a way to verify your approach to extract the existing information.

You might get bonus points, if you actually have suggestions how to improve your method to outperform the existing ones.

Of course, you should first check whether your method is really worse in every respect.

As your three-image method takes a new approach, it is novel in the academic sense: It adds to the existing knowledge. Thus you should be able to publish a paper on this, though probably not in a high-ranking journal. The rationale for this (which you can describe in your paper) is this: Your new approaches may inspire other methods which in turn may outperform existing ones or yield entirely new information.

You could write the paper directly in this tone, not focussing on the method you are presenting but on the fact that you can extract the information your method (and the others) yield in a new way. In this context, you should probably not present your method primarily as a method, but as a way to verify your approach to extract the existing information.

You might get bonus points, if you actually have suggestions how to improve your method to outperform the existing ones.

Of course, you should first check whether your method is really worse in every respect.

As your three-image method takes a new approach, it is novel in the academic sense: It adds to the existing knowledge. Thus you should be able to publish a paper on this, though probably not in a high-ranking journal (unless you blatantly underestimated the advantages of your method). The rationale for this is the following and you may use it to motivate your method in your paper: Your new approaches may inspire other methods which in turn may drastically outperform existing ones or yield entirely new information.

You could write the paper directly in this tone, not focussing on the method you are presenting but on the fact that you can extract the information your method (and the others) yield in a new way. In this context, you may consider not presenting your method primarily as a method, but as a way to verify your approach to extract the existing information.

You might get bonus points, if you actually have suggestions how to improve your method to outperform the existing ones.

1
source | link

As your three-image method takes a new approach, it is novel in the academic sense: It adds to the existing knowledge. Thus you should be able to publish a paper on this, though probably not in a high-ranking journal. The rationale for this (which you can describe in your paper) is this: Your new approaches may inspire other methods which in turn may outperform existing ones or yield entirely new information.

You could write the paper directly in this tone, not focussing on the method you are presenting but on the fact that you can extract the information your method (and the others) yield in a new way. In this context, you should probably not present your method primarily as a method, but as a way to verify your approach to extract the existing information.

You might get bonus points, if you actually have suggestions how to improve your method to outperform the existing ones.

Of course, you should first check whether your method is really worse in every respect.