It should be written in an impersonal form.
BAD: A common mistake for novice authors is to use the expression “I did,” “I reviewed,” “the author suggests,” “the author complied.” So writing is NOT.
GOOD: It should write “in the report considered”, “the article suggests”, “it was discovered”, “the study showed that”, etc.
Avoid “everyday examples”.
Examples in scientific texts are subtle matter. Their task is not to “explain to the stupid reader what this is about,” but to expand the description, complementing it with useful information.
BAD: “This algorithm works in the same way the secretary would have worked, making up a report”, “the proposed approach is similar to using the standard toolkit”, “using the developed PS for the end user is no more difficult to work in MS-Word”.
GOOD: “The proposed method is based on a modified Levenshtein distance determination algorithm”, “the complexity of using the proposed software is comparable to the complexity of using office applications”, “simplified analogues of the proposed approach are algorithms “in the limiting case this problem reduces to partial simplified solutions namely…”
Conversation with the reader should be avoided.
Everything is simple here.
BAD: “As is known,” “have you thought,” “many think,” “What is the Internet?”
GOOD: There should be no such expressions.
You should use the generally accepted terminology of the subject area, avoiding jargon.
And here, too, everything is simple. Every (EVERYONE!) Jargon has a scientific option. He is either already well-known, and you just need to remember it, or you can “synthesize” it based on an understanding of the essence of jargon (the object or phenomenon that it describes).
BAD: “Admin”, “engine”, “login”.
GOOD: “Administrator Interface”, “Application Core”, “Authorize”.
It is necessary to remember about references to primary sources and auxiliary material (formulas, tables, figures, etc.)
Even the most beautiful text without ancillary material looks at least a little strange, but as a maximum it causes suspicions of unreliability and other sins.
BAD: “An experiment conducted over seven months showed GOOD: “The results of the experiment (table 1) obtained within seven months, allow to come to the conclusion BAD: “The scheme of interaction between application modules is redundant in some situations.”
GOOD: “There are situations (Figures 1, 2, 3) in which the existing scheme of interaction between application modules may be redundant (the redundancy ratio is calculated using formula (1)), which allows us to simplify it to the form shown in Figure 4.”