Explain what is Bologna Process. Critically estimate its influence on an education system in RK.

The Bologna Process is a series of ministerial meetings and agreements between European countries to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher-education qualifications. The process has created the European Higher Education Area under the Lisbon Recognition Convention. It is named after the University of Bologna, where the Bologna declaration was signed by education ministers from 29 European countries in 1999. The process was opened to other countries in the European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe, and governmental meetings have been held in Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007) and Leuven (2009).

Before the signing of the Bologna declaration, the Magna Charta Universitatum was issued at a meeting of university rectors celebrating the 900th anniversary of the University of Bologna(and European universities) in 1988. One year before the declaration, education ministers Claude Allegre(France), Jürgen Rüttgers(Germany), Luigi Berlinguer(Italy) and Baroness Blackstone(UK) signed the Sorbonne declaration in Paris in 1998, committing themselves to "harmonising the architecture of the European Higher Education system". The Bologna Process has 50 participating countries.

In March 2010, Kazakhstan formally joined the Bologna Declaration and became the 47th member of the European Higher Education Area and the first Central Asian state recognized as a full member of the European educational space. After joining the Bologna process, there have been major changes in the system of higher education in Kazakhstan. For instance:

· Kazakhstan universities joined the Great Charter of Universities, which is now signed by more than 650 universities around the world, which will bring the education closer to European standards. More than 60 Kazakhstan universities signed the Great Charter.

· The transition to a three-level model of training specialists is carried out: bachelor - master - doctor PhD, based on the principles of the Bologna Declaration.

· Progressive technologies and training systems are introduced in the educational process of universities: all credit institutions have introduced credit technology of education, in 38 - two-diploma education is realized, in 42 - distance education.

Give an assessment from the point of view of advantages and shortcomings of reforming of an education system of Kazakhstan during independence.

During the years of independence, the education system of the Republic of Kazakhstan has passed through several stages in its development, during which the following tasks were accomplished:

- The regulatory and legal framework for the educational process was formed;

- A differentiated, multi-level system of obtaining knowledge and skills is built (pre-school education - secondary education

- Post-secondary (vocational) education

- Higher education

- postgraduate education);

- The principles and approaches to the management of education have been adjusted in the context of the tasks of market and state development;

- A system of public and private schools and universities has been formed, which meets the basic needs of the population in education;

- National quality system of education, including Unified National Testing (UNT) of school leavers, developed and implemented;

- Informatization of education was carried out, universal connection to the Internet of schools and universities was launched;

- The educational mechanism on a paid and free basis is unified; - the mechanism of educational grants and credits is formed;

- The RK educational system entered the world educational space by joining the UN program "Education for All", the Bologna Convention;

- Transition to a three-level structure of higher and postgraduate education (bachelor's - master's degree - doctoral studies);

- Credit technologies for training in higher education institutions have been introduced; - the development of distance education began;

 - The material and technical and financial base of education has significantly strengthened.

36. Estimate the author's responsibility for the publication and his right.

Trust is fundamental to scientific communication: trust that the authors have accurately reported their methods and findings, trust that authors have disclosed all potential conflicts of interest, and trust that editors have exercised sufficient diligence to ensure accurate reporting and disclosure by authors. Unfortunately, problems with authorship are not uncommon and can threaten the integrity of scientific research.1 With the aim to decrease such problems, this section focuses on principles to guide authorship-related decisions, policies, practices, and responsibilities.

Authors are generally defined as persons who have contributed sufficiently to a scientific report to be listed on the byline of the published report. Many journals provide guidelines on authorship in their instructions for authors. Some professional and research funding organizations and academic institutions also provide such guidance. Principles, customs, and practices regarding authorship differ from one scientific discipline to another. This document aims to summarize common principles to guide authorship across scientific disciplines.

Principles related to authorship with general consensus include the following:

Identification of authors and other contributors is the responsibility of the people who did the work (the researchers) not the people who publish the work (editors, publishers). Researchers should determine which individuals have contributed sufficiently to the work to warrant identification as an author.

Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgments section.

All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgment should be identified. Conversely, every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.

Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the manuscript before publication.

Editors should require authors and those acknowledged to identify their contributions to the work and make this information available to readers.

The ultimate reason for identification of authors and other contributors is to establish accountability for the reported work.

There is less agreement about the best way to ask about and report contributions, whether being an author implies accountability for only parts of the work they specifically did or for the entire paper, and whether editors should set firm criteria to distinguish authors from acknowledged contributors.