“Here’s a simple test: if somebody reads your conclusions before reading the rest of your paper, will they fully understand them? If the answer is ‘yes’, there’s probably something wrong. A good conclusion says things that become significant after the paper has been read. A good conclusion gives perspective to sights that haven’t yet been seen at the introduction. A conclusion is about the implications of what the reader has learned.”
Finally can we get past that idiotic nonsense of using it just to repeat the abstract, repeat the introduction, repeat everything in the paper, and repeat again and again, … though in fancy words? Thank you!