The maintenance of scientific work should suggest to (describe) the decision of a scientific problem or technical working out.
Under requirements (the Higher Attestative Committee) Russia the master's thesis should be scientific qualifying work in which the decision of the scientific problem having essential value for the corresponding field of knowledge contains, or scientifically proved technical workings out providing the decision of the important applied problems are stated.
Certainly, these requirements uncertain enough in parts «essential value» and «the important applied problem», but clearness here is brought by the Academic council which accepts or does not accept the dissertation to protection.
These requirements to dissertations can be extrapolated safely on articles, diplomas and any scientific works for which adequacy of quality is defined by corresponding body:
· for journal article is an editorial board,
· for the report at conference is Program Committee,
· for research paper is a HOOK (the State Certifying commission), as a rule, consisting of teachers of chair.
The scientific problem is the theoretical and-or experimental problem demanding finding-out by the unknown person before law, property or the phenomenon.
Technical working out is the proved offer of the unknown person before a way, technologies or devices.
The scientific article should be clear to the reader, therefore the writer not do without introduction in a problem, that is a statement of the known information concerning the given subject domain. Therefore all information containing in scientific work can be divided on two categories - new and relevant.
The new information should be specially allocated and designated the formulation of "scientific novelty» works. A positive effect or utility of the new information should be designated the formulation of "practical value» works. Scientific novelty and practical value of work is usually resulted in introduction.
Degree of novelty of usual (ordinary) scientific work is relative enough and, as a rule, is compared with already existing decisions of similar problems. Therefore it is recommended to have in scientific work the special section containing the relevant information, that is the state-of-the-art review of similar works <http://www.sim-mfti.ru/content/? fl=215&doc=1016>. Scientific novelty of work shows experience, that, as a rule, is progressive development of a prototype, therefore it is recommended to formulate it, following «the patent formula» - differing that....
Scientific work should possess the certain internal logic reflecting as the author's point of view on the considered circle of questions, and a course of scientific research. It is recommended to build logic sequence (or «a red thread») scientific work under the following scheme:
· a substantiation of an urgency of work
· the purpose and object of research formulation and-or workings out (problem statement)
· a choice of a technique of carrying out of research (a mathematical apparatus, technics of experiment, computer modelling, etc.)
· the description of process of research (a course of experiment, working out)
· the analysis of similar works
· discussion of results of research or working out (it is frequent, in comparison with results of similar works)
· the formulation of conclusions
· the list of the quoted literature.
The name of scientific work, its purpose and the received results should be itself. Successful and exact it is considered such name of scientific work from which the purpose and the received results is clearly visible. The name of scientific work should be concrete (not indistinct), but not too long.
Try to write so that your work was clear not only to your nearest colleague or the co-author possessing same as well as you a profound knowledge on the given problem, but also the student or the post-graduate student who has become interested in your work at least to pass a test, pass examination, or to include it in the literary review.
Carefully choose formulations at drawing up of the summary of the work. Even if the summary is not required (though it happens seldom), nevertheless, prepare it and place in the end of introduction. Use «Recommendations for young preachers»:
· at first tell, about what will speak
· then speak
· and in the end tell, about what you spoke.
Good ornament of scientific work is certain technically difficult result received by the author: a conclusion of the beautiful formula, the proof of the elegant theorem, the description of optimum algorithm. However, it is not necessary to place such material in the basic text of scientific work - its place in the appendix.