Asking for help in editing my dissertation's abstract

[nilly_madar]

Re-posting from b.org:

Would any of you clever with-actual-knowledge nice people like to be brutally take-no-prisoners-ly nitpicker-ly honest in tearing apart my abstract so that I can improve it? Any sort of remark is more than welcome - obviously, the language and grammar, as well as sentence and paragraph structure, but of course I'd love any

Comments

[spectralbovine]

Not only does the amount of data traffic in them keep growing, but its various types and uses keep expanding, as well.
You've been talking in plurals the whole time until now. I think you mean this to be "their," if it's still referring to "networks." If you mean "the Internet," you should clarify that and also not switch number in the middle of a sentence.

Classical models for networks are based on regular lattices and random graph theory derived by Erdos and Renyi in the 1960's.
No apostrophe! 1960s.

The most notable difference is in the degree (number of links per node) distribution
I would move the parenthetical to after the noun so you don't break the flow in the middle of the phrase (...the degree distribution (number of links per node).

which, in real world networks is usually a power-law,
Rogue comma after "which." I have no idea what a power-law is.

A question related to this abovementioned network's stability is the dynamics of virus and worm spreading through it.
Spreading through what? The antecedent right now is "stability," when I believe you mean "network." So you should just say "spreading through the network."

A network which is not resilient
which -> that

Efficient immunization of large computer networks becomes extremely important in light of epidemic spreading in human populations as well as large productivity losses due to virus infections.
This sentence loses me at the end because I can't tell what the "as well as" is referring to. Are the losses becoming extremely important or are they part of the "in light of"? I think you might just want an "and" there instead.

Immunizing the most highly connected nodes enabled a very small fraction of immunized nodes to stop the spread of the epidemic, however it also required full knowledge of the entire system.
Semicolon after "epidemic," comma after "however."

An immunization strategy which combined both advantages
which -> that

But the static characteristics of epidemics and immunizations are not enough for a complete picture
HOLY STARTING A SENTENCE WITH A CONJUNCTION, BATMAN!

since they cannot capture the time-dependent progress of the disease, the time required for extinguishing it, the fraction of infected nodes at each time step and so forth.
I don't like this "so forth" business. It seems too informal, like you're just shooting from the hip rather than writing an academic paper.

We used the well-known SIR model, describing diseases dynamics, as well as its mapping to known results from percolation theory.
Should that be disease dynamics? Or diseases' dynamics? Also, you have antecedent issues again. Whose mapping? The model's or the dynamics'? I think you might want a dependent clause for the disease dynamics to avoid confusion (...model, which describes disease dynamics, as well as its mapping to...). Actually, that's still a little confusing because now I think the "as well as" may be connected to the describing rather than the using.

The deep and comprehensive description of that topology as well as its effect on the netwrok's properties
La la la.

The deep and comprehensive description of that topology as well as its effect on the netwrok's properties makes it possible to take the next step and use it not just for the static characteristics of the network, but for attempting to describe and even optimize the dynamic properties, as well.
Nilly, I think you have an As Well problem. We need to check you in to As Well rehab.

Thus, the search for the shortest path between two random nodes, can enjoy
Rogue comma after nodes.

Finally, in order to study network performance, topology is not the only factor, but one needs also to consider traffic.
Aargh, flipping your subjects! These clauses should be parallel: "Topology is not the only factor: traffic must also be considered." Or, say, "one must consider traffic in addition to topology." Or something. Merge the two concepts together.