{"title":"论文的附加结论","authors":"А. Gabov","doi":"10.33397/2619-0559-2021-3-3-163-180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: the article deals with the legal phenomenon of an additional conclusion on a dissertation that rarely comes into the focus of attention of domestic researchers, which is regulated in the Regulations on Awarding Academic Degrees and the Regulations on the Council for the Defense of Dissertations for the Degree of Candidate of Science, for the Degree of Doctor of Science. The relevance of the issue is explained by the ongoing processes of transformation of all the main elements of the state system of scientific certification. Purpose: to show the main elements of this institute, the problems of its regulation, including in connection with the changes made to the state system of scientific certification by Federal Law of 23 May 2016 No. 148-FZ “On Amendments to Article 4 of the Federal Law ‘On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy’” (hereinafter – Law No. 148-FZ), as well as the directions for improving legal regulation of this institute. Methods: system analysis, historical method. Results: the goals of the institute of additional conclusions on the dissertation are revealed; marked defects in the regulation of additional conclusion on the dissertation; given the significant changes in the state system of scientific attestation in connection with the receipt of a number of organizations right of self-awarding degrees, as well as the accumulated practice of application of this institute, the directions of its improvement are formulated. Conclusions: according to the author of the article, the institute of additional conclusion should not be abandoned, it may well be in demand in the future and in the activities of organizations, those who have received the right to independently award academic degrees. The current regulation of the institute of additional conclusion requires complete renovation.","PeriodicalId":33643,"journal":{"name":"Metodologicheskie problemy tsivilisticheskikh issledovanii","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION ON A DISSERTATION\",\"authors\":\"А. Gabov\",\"doi\":\"10.33397/2619-0559-2021-3-3-163-180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: the article deals with the legal phenomenon of an additional conclusion on a dissertation that rarely comes into the focus of attention of domestic researchers, which is regulated in the Regulations on Awarding Academic Degrees and the Regulations on the Council for the Defense of Dissertations for the Degree of Candidate of Science, for the Degree of Doctor of Science. The relevance of the issue is explained by the ongoing processes of transformation of all the main elements of the state system of scientific certification. Purpose: to show the main elements of this institute, the problems of its regulation, including in connection with the changes made to the state system of scientific certification by Federal Law of 23 May 2016 No. 148-FZ “On Amendments to Article 4 of the Federal Law ‘On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy’” (hereinafter – Law No. 148-FZ), as well as the directions for improving legal regulation of this institute. Methods: system analysis, historical method. Results: the goals of the institute of additional conclusions on the dissertation are revealed; marked defects in the regulation of additional conclusion on the dissertation; given the significant changes in the state system of scientific attestation in connection with the receipt of a number of organizations right of self-awarding degrees, as well as the accumulated practice of application of this institute, the directions of its improvement are formulated. Conclusions: according to the author of the article, the institute of additional conclusion should not be abandoned, it may well be in demand in the future and in the activities of organizations, those who have received the right to independently award academic degrees. The current regulation of the institute of additional conclusion requires complete renovation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metodologicheskie problemy tsivilisticheskikh issledovanii\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metodologicheskie problemy tsivilisticheskikh issledovanii\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33397/2619-0559-2021-3-3-163-180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metodologicheskie problemy tsivilisticheskikh issledovanii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33397/2619-0559-2021-3-3-163-180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

导言:本文论述了《学位授予条例》和《理学博士学位候选人学位论文答辩委员会条例》中规定的国内学界很少关注的论文附加结论的法律现象。国家科学认证制度的所有主要要素正在进行的转变过程解释了这个问题的相关性。目的:展示该研究所的主要组成部分,其监管问题,包括2016年5月23日第148-FZ号联邦法“关于修改联邦法律”第4条科学和国家科学技术政策”(以下简称“第148-FZ号法律”)对国家科学认证制度的变化,以及改善该研究所法律监管的方向。方法:系统分析法、历史分析法。结果:揭示了论文补充结论研究所的目标;论文补充结论的规定存在明显缺陷;结合国家科学认证制度在接收一批组织学位自授权过程中发生的重大变化,以及本所积累的应用实践,提出了改进方向。结论:根据文章的作者,研究所的附加结论不应该被放弃,它很可能在未来的需求和组织的活动中,那些已经获得独立授予学位的人。目前研究所追加结论的规定需要彻底革新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION ON A DISSERTATION
Introduction: the article deals with the legal phenomenon of an additional conclusion on a dissertation that rarely comes into the focus of attention of domestic researchers, which is regulated in the Regulations on Awarding Academic Degrees and the Regulations on the Council for the Defense of Dissertations for the Degree of Candidate of Science, for the Degree of Doctor of Science. The relevance of the issue is explained by the ongoing processes of transformation of all the main elements of the state system of scientific certification. Purpose: to show the main elements of this institute, the problems of its regulation, including in connection with the changes made to the state system of scientific certification by Federal Law of 23 May 2016 No. 148-FZ “On Amendments to Article 4 of the Federal Law ‘On Science and State Scientific and Technical Policy’” (hereinafter – Law No. 148-FZ), as well as the directions for improving legal regulation of this institute. Methods: system analysis, historical method. Results: the goals of the institute of additional conclusions on the dissertation are revealed; marked defects in the regulation of additional conclusion on the dissertation; given the significant changes in the state system of scientific attestation in connection with the receipt of a number of organizations right of self-awarding degrees, as well as the accumulated practice of application of this institute, the directions of its improvement are formulated. Conclusions: according to the author of the article, the institute of additional conclusion should not be abandoned, it may well be in demand in the future and in the activities of organizations, those who have received the right to independently award academic degrees. The current regulation of the institute of additional conclusion requires complete renovation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
LEGAL MODELING AS A METHOD OF CIVIL RESEARCH ON THE METHODOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF THE THEORY OF SYSTEMIC ORGANIZATION OF INTERSECTORAL RELATIONS OF CIVIL LAW: TO THE ANNIVERSARY OF M.IU. CHELYSHEV PHILOSOPHICAL BATTLE AGAINST MORAL HAZARD: DO WE NEED LAW METHODOLOGY CHANGE FROM “ALL OR NOTHING PRINCIPLE” TO “PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY”? THE CONCEPT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE EU LEGISLATION: ANALYSIS IN THE CONTEXT OF METHODOLOGY OF THE CIVIL LAW RESEARCH ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION ON A DISSERTATION
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1