It is impossible to determine the title of a scientific work by factors that are not related to its main result. For example, it is impossible to determine the title of the study area in which the main result is obtained. The title should reflect not what is being researched, but the results obtained from this study. It is unacceptable that the title does not have to do with the expression of the main result of scientific work, which, however, is not so rare. Making a similar mistake, the authors replace the essential requirement to the title with non-essential ones: catchiness, sonority, stylistic beauty, brevity, and similar factors. They may not be superfluous provided that the basic requirement is met, but they cannot and should not replace it. As a rule, it is very difficult to ensure that the title adequately expresses the main result of scientific work. This difficulty can be largely eliminated by stating the purpose of the work.
The purpose of the scientific work is the reduction (reduction) of the main issue to more specific (auxiliary) issues. It immediately follows that the goal of the work is essentially determined by its main result. For example, the main result of this article will be three types of methodological requirements: requirements for the structure of the work, for the introduction of concepts into it and for the substantiation of its results. Accordingly, the purpose of this article was formulated. Such a formulation, on the one hand, is consistent with the title of the work (in the sense that the purpose of the work is a reduction of the main issue expressed in the title), on the other with the main result of this work (for it indicates those sub-questions whose solution gives the opportunity to answer main question). The goal of the work should be the reduction of the main question to auxiliary questions, the answers to which will directly enable one to get an answer to the main question, i.e., questions of the first level. The question is reduced by dividing the concept that is in question, on some basis, and by questioning the concepts that are the result of this division.
Let us clarify this thought with an example. In the question “What are the methodological requirements for scientific work?”, The notion “methodological requirements” is questionable. We divide this concept into three concepts: “methodological requirements for the structure of work”, “methodological requirements for the introduction of concepts” and “methodological requirements for substantiation of theses (judgments, results)”. On this basis, we form three auxiliary questions: “What are the methodological requirements for the structure of work” and the other two by analogy. Obviously, the title, purpose and main resultshould be consistent with the determining role of the main result. It is useful to note that this circumstance is important not only for the correct writing of the final version of the scientific work, but also for the preliminary study of it and for draft versions of the work. Let’s clarify this thought. Suppose the author chose a topic for writing the work and reflected its main question in the title. Suppose further that he reduced the main question on some basis to auxiliary questions. Suppose also that the author gave answers to these questions. But it may happen that these answers for some reason do not satisfy the author.