The text of the work should be clearly structured, the provisions – supported by examples, examples – their analysis. Do not abuse the examples: 1-2 is enough for each position.
The reasoning should be logical. You can not jump from topic to topic, lyrical digressions are unacceptable.
The conclusion should summarize the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the examples. Or answer the question “Why is all this important.” It is sometimes said that the conclusion is an introduction, written in other words and in the past tense (that is, “In our work we will consider …” – “Thus, we considered … proved … substantiated … analyzed … etc.”). But such a conclusion is better than none. In conclusion, there should be no new provisions or examples: it sums up the work already written.
It is not necessary to write the names of the sections “Introduction” and “Conclusion” in the text itself: this is not a monograph, in the work on 2 pages such a structure looks ridiculous.
4. Registration of work
The main rule here is to strictly observe the requirements of the organizing committee. You’d be surprised, but if the organizing committee asks you to format the text in 12 Times New Roman with one and a half intervals, these strange people really want the text sent by you to be in 12 Times New Roman with a half space! Yes, yes, and the fields should not be 0.5 cm, but 1.5, 2 or 3! And yes, they really are watching! Because these strange people are then preparing a layout, and it is easier for them to refuse the incorrectly prepared theses than to bother with their re-issuance.
Abstracts prepared according to the rules are not only the requirements of good form. This is the first indicator that a novice researcher can read and correctly comprehend information. What scientific research can we talk about with a person who was not able to correctly understand the phrase “footnotes are not allowed” or “volume – no more than 7 pages”? Such work must be rejected.