I was asked to review a paper with many attributes I should consider. More specifically, I was asked to review the “methodology” and “originality of approach and presentation”.

What is the difference between them in scientific research or as qualities of a paper?

  • 11
    If you want to know what your advisor means, ask them, not us! – David Richerby Dec 17 '15 at 19:24
  • @DavidRicherby: I think it’s safe to assume that we are talking about a typical peer review or these terms are to be understood as in peer review. – Wrzlprmft Dec 24 '15 at 7:00
  • 2
    I don't really see why this is too broad - it's a pretty straightforward question about academic terminology. Voting to reopen. – ff524 Dec 24 '15 at 7:01

I doubt that you were asked to review the “originality of presentation” as this is not a key factor. Sometimes a paper requires an original mode of presentation and that’s fine, but if it doesn’t, that’s better. Thus I assume you were tasked to judge the following three:

  • Originality of approach refers to the central idea and novelty of the paper. Many journals require papers to contain original ideas. So the question you would have to answer is: Does the paper contain novel ideas or insights? And how novel or creative are they?

  • Methodology refers to the application of methods to realise the approach. Were established methods chosen and used appropriately? If new methods were developed, was it necessary and are they any good?

  • Presentation refers to how the research is presented. Is everything intelligible with reasonable effort? Do you have all information necessary to reproduce the research?

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.