Abstract requirements
The volume of abstracts should not exceed 3,000 characters, including spaces. The use of tables, images, graphs, footnotes and notes is not allowed in the text. Information about grant support is provided at the end of the abstracts. The list of references is not included in the required volume of 3000 characters.
Quoting:
The list of references should contain no more than 5 sources. Bibliographic references in the text are numbered sequentially in square brackets. The list of references is placed in a separate window after the text of the abstracts and is compiled in the order in which the sources are mentioned in the text. The list of references must not have a heading. The list of references indicates all those and only those sources that are mentioned in the text of the theses.
Examples of bibliographic references in the text:
The experiment of I.I. Ivanov [1] showed…
Many scientists have written about this problem [2; 3; 4]
According to P.P. Petrov [5, p. 25]…
Many scientists have written about this problem [2; 3; 4]
According to P.P. Petrov [5, p. 25]…
Example of the design of the list of references:
Link to the book:
1. Smith J. 2016 Experimenting with cross-referencing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The book is edited by one or more editors, without attribution:
2. Editor A.A.., Editor B.B., Editor C.C. (eds.) 2002. How to Edit Things That Need Editing. Norwell: Kluwer.
Author's article in the book under the general editorship:
3. Writer W.W. 2000. Writing a Book, Drawing a Picture. E.Editor (ed.) Editing Books for Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–234
Link to the article in the journal:
4. Author A.A., Author B.B., Author C.C. 1998. How to write a great abstract. Journal of Great Abstracts, 18(1), 168–170.
1. Smith J. 2016 Experimenting with cross-referencing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The book is edited by one or more editors, without attribution:
2. Editor A.A.., Editor B.B., Editor C.C. (eds.) 2002. How to Edit Things That Need Editing. Norwell: Kluwer.
Author's article in the book under the general editorship:
3. Writer W.W. 2000. Writing a Book, Drawing a Picture. E.Editor (ed.) Editing Books for Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–234
Link to the article in the journal:
4. Author A.A., Author B.B., Author C.C. 1998. How to write a great abstract. Journal of Great Abstracts, 18(1), 168–170.
Abstracts will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. Scientific contribution - the problem under study is relevant and of interest for the scientific community.
2. A scientific problem/hypothesis/research question is clearly defined.
3. The text of the abstract contains a description of the research methodology. The proposed method corresponds to the problem/hypothesis.
4. Reliance on existing theories/studies on relevant issues, supported by references to the source.
5. The presence of real or predicted research results corresponding to the formulated hypothesis/problem posed.
6. The text of the theses meet the requirements of academic writing: a logical narrative, scientific style.
7. Abstracts do not contain signs of illegal borrowing or other forms of violation of scientific ethics by the author.
2. A scientific problem/hypothesis/research question is clearly defined.
3. The text of the abstract contains a description of the research methodology. The proposed method corresponds to the problem/hypothesis.
4. Reliance on existing theories/studies on relevant issues, supported by references to the source.
5. The presence of real or predicted research results corresponding to the formulated hypothesis/problem posed.
6. The text of the theses meet the requirements of academic writing: a logical narrative, scientific style.
7. Abstracts do not contain signs of illegal borrowing or other forms of violation of scientific ethics by the author.
