Q:

What is the difference between “methodology” vs. “originality of approach” when reviewing a paper

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?

A:

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?

