Актуальные проблемы исследования философии Н.Н. Страхова (материалы «круглого стола»)

The International Scientific and Practical Conference “Young Leaders in Library Science” was held for the first time by the Russian State Library (RSL) in September 2022 as part of celebration of the 160th anniversary of the Moscow Public Museum and Rumyantsev Museum with the participation of the National Library of Russia (NLR) and the Section 31 on scientific research work of the Russian Library Association (RLA). The idea of the conference — to identify the present and future leaders of scientific projects and research in the modern library and information sphere of the country — has no analogues.The conference was attended by representatives of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, the National Research University — Higher School of Economics and the leading universities of Moscow that train staff for libraries — the Moscow State Linguistic University and the Moscow State Institute of Culture. For the first time, the results of the All-Russian monitoring of the staffing needs of libraries in 2022 in terms of the presence of young and qualified specialists in the sector were presented to the wide audience.For two days, three sections worked at the conference site: “Scientific research: in libraries, about libraries, for libraries”, “Applied scientific research in the library field: modern approaches and results” and “Library personnel: higher and additional professional education”. The latter was timed to the 100th anniversary of organization of specialized professional training of librarians within the RSL (1922—2022).511 participants from 9 neighbouring countries have previously registered to participate in the conference. 68 reports and papers of specialists from federal, regional, municipal, university libraries, universities, scientific organizations from 24 regions of Russia and three CIS countries were presented. The speakers were students and postgraduates, 8 doctors of sciences and 29 candidates of sciences, as well as managers and practitioners engaged in applied research as part of their direct work. Following the results of the conference, the collection of the best reports will be published in 2023.243 full-time participants attended the conference; the broadcasts of the events were viewed 2,243 times only at the time of its closure.The result of the conference was to identify the most relevant topics of scientific research in the area of library science, bibliography science and book studies, as well as specialists who will develop library science in the coming years and who will work in these scientific areas.

This article presents the creative project of Archimandrite Gabriel (V. N. Voskresensky), a prominent figure of the first half of the 19th century, a theologian, philosopher, and scholarly monk. Archimandrite Gabriel is a key figure for understanding the historical and philosophical process in Russia for several reasons. First and foremost, he created the world’s first history of Russian philosophy, creating a new academic genre for his time, «Russian philosophy». But as an intellectual «pioneer» in the historiographical format, he consistently constructed not only a «Russian philosophy» but also a national philosophy of law, known as «philosophical truth». After composing the first «history of Russian philosophy» in Russia (1840), Archimandrite Gabriel undertook the development of a textbook at the Imperial Kazan University, presenting a philosophy of law reflecting the precepts of his time, characterized by the clash of «faith and reason», «conservative and liberal». Adhering to the parameters of historical and philosophical research (revealing the form and essence of ideas in their history, the genealogy of the intellectual process), he reconstructed a creative event, a creative act, dominated by the formation of a nationally oriented philosophy of law, taking into account European experience but favoring its own themes and problems, materials, and methods. This study, conducted using the humanitarian archaeology of key factors influencing the scientific and educational processes of the mid- 19th century, explores these factors: higher education, church and state, ideology and education, and the renewal of academic techniques and practices while preserving the values inherent in the national cultural narrative. To achieve these objectives, the principle of «intellectual investigation» is employed, based on historical and philosophical reconstruction and cultural and civilizational hermeneutics. The study presents a set of key factors (institutions, individuals, texts, and situations) that contributed to the formation of a «philosophy of truth». The reconstruction of a set of legal ideas is based on philosophical and historical research in educational, scientific, ideological, and political contexts. The results provide an empirical, conceptual, and contextual basis for further research in philosophy and law, as well as material for educational programs in higher education.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and <0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI < 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI > 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: < 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

Overview of the 18th International Scientific and Technical Conference Rapid Solidification Materials and Coatings A A Lozovan1 and D K Kostrin2 1Department of Materials and Materials Technology, Moscow Aviation Institute(National Research University) “MAI”, 121552, Orshanskaya, 3, Moscow, Russia 2Department of Electronic Instruments and Devices, Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”, 197376, Professora Popova, 5, Saint Petersburg, RussiaE-mail: alexandr.lozovan@yandex.ru . In this preface the main results of the 18th International Scientific and Technical Conference Rapid Solidification Materials and Coatings that was held on 19–20 October 2021 in Moscow, Russia are discussed.From 19 to 20 October 2021, the 18th International Scientific and Technical Conference Rapid Solidification Materials and Coatings (RSMC–2021) was held at the Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University).Despite the difficulties associated with the coronavirus pandemic, more than 100 specialists from leading universities, the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian enterprises, as well as scientists from Ukraine and Belarus, took part in the Conference. For the successful holding of the Conference in a pandemic, all the necessary measures were taken to ensure the implementation of sanitary rules and standards for the protection of Conference participants.At the Conference the results, which were obtained in the last year after the previous Conference, of the theoretical and experimental studies on the physics of condensed matter, low-temperature plasma physics, electronic and ion-plasma surface modification, physical methods of film deposition and other studies obtained over the last year after the previous Conference.The main objects of these studies were superficiality and superficial phenomena. Therefore, to the development and improvement of methods of surface modification and coatings deposition, as well as methods of their research and development of modern surface treatment equipment was paid the greatest attention at the Conference.During the Conference more than 70 reports were presented, which were heard in the following, traditional Conference sections (figure 1):• section 1 – Rapid solidification materials;• section 2 – Methods of coating application and research;• section 3 – Laser, electron-beam and ion-plasma methods of surface modification;• section 4 – Composite materials and permanent joints;• section 5 – Works of young scientists.The Conference was opened by Alexander Vladimirovich Bespalov, Co-Chairman of the Director of the Department of Materials Science and Materials Technology of the Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), who emphasized the importance of developing research in the field of physical and physicochemical methods of obtaining and processing new materials and coatings for the aerospace industry. He also noted the achievements of the Institute’s scientists in the field of laser coating and fast solidification materials.List of Organizing Committee, Program Committee, Photos are available in this pdf.

The history of Russian-Armenian literary relationships is one of the brightest and most significant events of the time. It undoubtedly enhanced the mutual cultural heritage and left a profound mark on the worldview, moral and aesthetic values of Armenian and Russian writers, translators, and literary critics. Since the beginning of the 20th-century Armenian culture, mainly Armenian literature, aroused great interest among such outstanding classics, as M. Gorky, V. Bryusov, A. Blok, O. Mandelstam, A. Bely, A. Akhmatova and others who not only appreciated its aesthetic and stylistic texture but also embarked on the laborious work of translating its best achievements into Russian. In this sense, the anthology "The Poetry of Armenia from Ancient Times to the Present" in 1916 can be considered a significant cultural event. It was edited by Valery Bryusov, who also wrote the introductory part of the work. The publication was carried out with M. Gorky's direct assistance and support. It should be noted that many Russian translations done by V. Bryusov and A. Blok are still brilliant samples of the artistic heritage of translation. The present work focuses on the evaluations and interpretations of Russian critics (V. Bryusov, Y. Veselovsky) of the creative heritage of Gh. Alishan, his poetic individuality and the influence on the development of the literary process of that time. It also reveals the role of Russian poets, translators and literary critics in promoting the publication and popularization of Bryusov's anthology as a significant cultural event of the time. The section of the anthology "Poetry of Western Armenians" includes the most famous poems of Gh. Alishan, M. Peshiktashlyan, P. Duryan, Sipil, L. Shant, and others are parallelly illustrated by the excellent translations of V. Bryusov, S. Shervinsky, V. Khodasevich, K. Balmont, S. Bobrov and others. The scientific research has shown that among Russian poets and translators, Bryusov was one of the first interested in Gh. Alishan's literary works and his bright poetic individuality. It can be explained by the fact that Alishan was a well-known representative of Western Armenian poetry and a comprehensive creator of his time, a man with encyclopedic knowledge. In addition, he was a historian, philosopher, translator, philosopher, geographer who devoted his whole life to science and enlightenment. Bryusov was also a gifted man. He had a poetic talent; he contributed to improving the Russian dialect, elevating it to a new, higher level. Consequently, there are many common features between Bryusov and Alishan. These are the breadth of the intellectual range, brilliant knowledge of languages and world literature, devotion to scientific activities, profound love for their Motherland, its cultural values and the highest level of humanism. Undoubtedly, they were outstanding figures of their era who made a significant contribution to the development of culture, science and literature. This article is an attempt at a comprehensive study of the principles of the Russian translation theory used in the translation of Armenian literature, with particular reference to the poem "Hrazdan", an extract from Gh. Alishan's patriotic lyrics. The proficiency of Russian translators and the revelation of Armenian linguistic and national characteristics helped them interpret the linguo-stylistic peculiarities of the original and recreate their equivalent counterparts.

The textbook "Preparation of a research project and presentation of the results of scientific research", which was prepared by the doctor of historical sciences, professor Serhiy Kharitonovych Lytvyn and the doctor of sciences in social communications, professor Viktoriya Vasylivna Dobrovolska - professors of the National Academy of Managerial Personnel of Culture and Arts, occupies a prominent place in improving the content. structure, professional level of training of applicants at the third (educational and scientific) level of higher education. Today, there remains an acute need for highly qualified scientists who must perfectly master research methodology and methods of scientific heuristics and be able to present the results of their scientific research. The publication was prepared on the basis of the authors' four-year experience of teaching the discipline in the postgraduate program of the National Academy of Managers of Culture and Arts. The textbook is characterized by a purely author's presentation of the material, providing post-graduate students with organizational and methodical advice on planning research work, defining the topic, object, subject, goal, scientific tasks, methods of searching and collecting materials, working on the text, mode of conducting scientific work.

The article presents findings of complex interdisciplinary researches of a group of sopkas in the Plakun terrain feature. The monument is part of the Staroladozhky archaeological complex located in Volk- hovsky district, Leningrad region, 120 km east of St. Petersburg. The sopkas are one of the main landmarks of the region. They are high steep embankments 11 – 30 m in diameter and 3 – 8 m high. They date back to the 8th – 10th centuries. The ethnicity of their makers is uncertain. Historiographical data suggest that the monu- ment consisted of 6 sopkas divided into clusters 3 embankments each. In 1955, the southernmost sopka was excavated for demolition. In 2022 – 2023, scheduled scientific researches and Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 23-18-00515 implied an aerial laser scanning of the monument territory. The area was scanned at the attitude of 70 – 90 m with a DJI Matrice 300 RTK drone and an L1 LiDAR from a DJI D-RTK ground station. The coordinates are referenced in LCS-47 Zone 2 with Spectra Epoch 50 GNSS receiver and amended by Geospider survey station network. The findings allow to distinguish a range of small hills in two groups of remaining sopkas. The standard presentation of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) clearly distinguishes 5 remaining large rounded embankments and piles of the excavated southernmost one. However, the research matches several relief color gradations. The study combines several DEM copies in QGIS geographic information system. Consequently, it is revealed that the chain of remaining embankments includes 4 rounded elevations. 3 of them resemble ploughed embankments. In 2023, two identified elevations were studied with OKO-2 ground penetrating radar equipped with a probe antenna which radiates 100 and 700 MHz pulses. The research involves gridding the area of the alleged lost ploughed sopkas and one apparent embankment. The profiles of the site were double-scanned. The radargrams reveal common structure features in the hills and sopka such as contrast mound foundations, heterogeneous centers, multi-layered structures and local depressions in the top layer around 0.5 meters thick. The findings suggest that 3 out of 4 hills can be viewed as demolished embank- ments of a sopka burial. The fourth one requires additional research.

<p>Magnetostratigraphic studies currently play an important role in the dating of the Miocene sections of the Kerch-Taman region (Eastern Paratethys). The major goal of our work was the paleomagnetic and rock magnetic studies of the transient Sarmatian-Meotian deposits in order to estimate the relative age (pre- or postfolding) of the natural remanent magnetization (NRM) using field tests. In order to solve this problem, during fieldwork in 2020-2021 the 280 hand-blocks at 0.1-2 m step were sampled from the key sections of the Sarmatian-Meotian transition - Popov Kamen, Panagia, Taman, and Tuzla (Taman Peninsula, Southern Russia). These sections located on different limbs of folds from one folded system. Thanks to rock magnetic studies, at least two magnetic minerals are determined - magnetic iron sulfide (presumably, greigite) and magnetite. NRM directions of two polarities, mostly isolated in the low-temperature interval and associated, apparently, with greigite, are determined. According to the results of paleomagnetic studies, a correlation between the bedding elements and NRM directions in the stratigraphic coordinate system is traceable. This, as well as the thermomagnetic results, show that the fold test for Popov Kamen and Panagia sections are negative, testify in favor of remagnetization, at least in part, of these sections. Our results suggest the impossibility of using the magnetostratigraphic method for dating the studied part of the sections Popov Kamen, Panagia, Taman, and Tuzla.</p><p>This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 19-77-10075.</p>

IntroductionDepression is a chronic, recurrent mental disorder with a moderate level of genetic impact. Modern GWAS of depression require extra-large sample sizes and new effective, clinically sensitive, objective and simple to fill online phenotyping tools for population studies are necessary today.ObjectivesAim: to test online phenotyping tools based on clinical and psychometric instruments to evaluate depressive symptoms in population cohort for using in GWASMethodsParticipants: 2610 Russian-speaking respondents- clients of Genotek Ltd., provider of genetic testing services in Russian Federation. The online survey included HADS-D (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression subscale), original questionnaire adapted for self-report from major depression DSM-5 criteria, questions about sex and age. Three research phenotypes were defined: quantitative “HADS-D score” and two categorical “HADS-D depression” (cut-off 8 points) - 20.63 %, “DSM depression” 16.73 %. DNA samples obtained from saliva were genotyped on Illumina Infinium GSA v1.0/v2.0/v3.0 microarrays. GWAS analysis was performed independently for each of the research phenotypes.ResultsNone of the signals reached genome-wide significance (p value 10-8), but some signals with subthreshold significance were identified including four signals in the genes encoding proteins: “DSM_Depression”: rs2131596 in GRIP1 (p=3.682e-06,β=0.6965), rs11158021 in SAMD4A (p=2.841e-06, β=0.6762), “HADS-D Depression”: rs2425793 in CDH22 (p=4.408e-07, β=1.539), rs36006890 in PDIA6 (p = 6.529e-07, β=1.549).ConclusionsPreliminary results of the first GWAS of depression symptoms in the Russian population are acceptable and confirm the accuracy of the research strategy using online phenotyping tools based on clinical and psychometric instruments and provide basis for further studies.DisclosureThe study was supported by Russian Science Foundation Grant # 20-15-00132

The fracture toughness KIC of interfaces between rocks consisting of gypsum rock and concrete was investigated. The cylindrical specimens had a diameter of 40 mm and a length of 150 mm with a V-shaped cut in the middle part. They consisted of two halves - gypsum rock and sand-cement mortar with a rock-concrete interface. Deformation of the specimens under bending according to the three-point scheme made it possible to determine the KIC based on the maximum force at 5-6 cycles. The average KIC value between rock and concrete was much lower than for rock and even for specimens made entirely of concrete. The formation of a calibrated crack during testing leads to a relative increase in the internal mechanical loss coefficient Q–1, determined by the resonance method, up to 30%. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 24-27-00103, https://rscf.ru/project/24-27-00103/

<p>The main factors for the degradation of the ecosystems in the metal-polluted territories are soil toxicity, organic matter degradation and violation of macro-element cycles. Heavily contaminated soils lose their ability to maintain sustainable vegetation, which leads to the formation of industrial barrens as the final stage of plant cover digression, where the vegetation cover is less than 10%. The deposition of metal mobile compounds into an insoluble form by alkaline sorbents is one of the most effective remediation techniques in situ. Technosol engineering is a trigger for the beginning of plant and soil cover development and the recovery succession under high pollution with metals compounds.</p><p>Field experiment of remediation using three types of serpentine mining wastes, expanded vermiculite and grass seeds mixture was laid down in 2010-2013 in the impact zone of the copper-nickel ore processing enterprise on the Kola peninsula (northern Europe) beyond the Arctic Circle at two sites with podzol and peat soil. The results obtained in 2019 showed that the immobilization effect was strengthened by high pH inherited from the alkaline wastes making Technosols a geochemical barrier. For the first 5-8 years of the experiment, the Technosol upper layers primary consisted of serpentine minerals, accumulated more than 1 g·kg-1 Ni and 0.1 g·kg<sup>-1</sup> Cu which are constantly deposited from the atmosphere as a result of the Cu-Ni enterprise activity. They also affected the underlying soil and neutralized the most toxic water-soluble and exchangeable fractions of Cu and Ni. Grass growing and litter deposition (in total 4.5-6 kg·m<sup>-2</sup>) during the experiment term led to the accumulation of organic carbon by serpentine minerals about 1.5%. Organic matter accumulation also played a significant role in metal binding by upper Technosol layers. Summarily, the remediation technology through the use of serpentine-reached mining wastes bound metals emitted by smelter into insoluble forms, reduced the toxicity of water-soluble and exchangeable fractions of heavy metals and promoted the sustainable development of plant cover.</p><p>Research was carried out with the support of the Russian Science Foundation grant 19-77-00077.</p><p> </p>

The Front Cover shows the crucial effect of stirring on the outcome of reactions of glycals with diphenyldiselenide, bis(acetoxy)iodobenzene, and sodium azide. Coffee beans depict glycals used as the starting material in both reactions. The left cup of cappuccino represents phenyl 2-azido-2-deoxy-1-selenoglycosides, the products of azidophenylselnylation occurring upon vigorous stirring. The right cup of americano shows 1-O-acetyl-2-seleno-2-deoxysugars, the products of acetoxyphenylselenylation that takes place without stirring, thus leaving NaN3 out of the reaction. This study was supported by Russian Science Foundation Grant 19-43-02023. The authors thank Ms. Natalia Bakurova for designing the cover. More information can be found in the Full Paper by N. E. Nifantiev et al.

<p>The ability of correlation functions to describe structure (Karsanina et al., 2015; Karsanina et al., 2018) and provide means to reconstruct the structure based on correlation functions (Gerke and Karsanina, 2015; Karsanina and Gerke, 2018) alone was proposed as means to effectively compress and store structural information (Gerke et al., 2015). This is especially appealing considering the fact that truly multi-scale digital 3D soil structure model for a single genetic horizon even with the resolution not finer than 1 µm will contain enormous amount (approx., up to 10^15 voxels or even more) of data. Effective management and pore-scale simulations based on such datasets does not seem feasible at the moment. Another approach would be to retrieve only a relevant part of the dataset and operate on it indirectly, in particular based on correlation functions or stochastic reconstructions. The main aim of this work was to investigate the possibility to compress soil structural data, as resulted from X-ray microtomography data and directional correlation functions computation (Gerke et al., 2014), into a very limited number of parameters, potentially with minimal information content loss. We show that with the help of the proposed technique it is possible to compress a 3D image of 900^3-1300^3 voxels into a set of correlation functions, that with the help of fitting of an analytical function in the form of the superposition of three different basis functions may help to map all these correlation functions in a vector of six parameters. We apply the proposed methodology to 16 different soil 3D images and discuss numerous important implications that can help to achieve the ultimate goal of building 3D multi-scale soil structure model from meter to nm. Such model would help in establishing a fully multi-scale hydrological model operating from first principles as opposed to coarse continuum scale models.</p><p>This work was supported by Russian Science Foundation grant 19-72-10082 (correlation functions) and Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 18-34-20131 мол_а_вед (soil data).</p><p>

The aim of this work was to study the activity of cathepsins B, L and H in the seminal plasma of stallions with normal (>25%, n = 11) and low (< 25%, n = 13) percentage of viable sperm after freezing-thawing. Sperm of 24 Arabian stallions aged from 5 to 20 years (12.1 ± 4.8 years on average) was collected during the breeding season (February-May). The activity of cathepsins in spermoplasm was studied by the spectrofluorometric method (System 3 Scanning Spectrofluorometry, Optical technology devices, inc. Elmstord, New York, 10523) by Barrett&Kirschke. The viability of the sperm was determined after its freezing-thawing. Sperm smears were eosin stained and live:dead-ratio was examined using an Olympus BX41 phase contrast microscope (Olympus Corporation, Japan). The significance of differences in the studied groups was determined using the Mann-Whitney U-test. There were no significant differences in the activity of catepsins B and L in the spermoplasm of stallions with normal and low percentages of viable spermatozoa after freezing-thawing. It was found that in the group of stallions with a normal percentage of viable spermatozoa after freezing-thawing, the activity of cathepsin H in the spermoplasm was significantly higher than in the group with a low percentage of viable spermatozoa (P = 0.0219). Free radicals formed during freezing-thawing of sperm can damage cell membranes, leading to loss of sperm viability. Thiol cathepsins are involved in the degradation of oxidatively modified proteins and, apparently, it is cathepsin H that is most actively involved in this process in the sperm of stallions. We assume that the low activity of cathepsin H in the seminal plasma of stallions with a low percentage of viable spermatozoa indicates a high involvement of this enzyme in the protection of sperm membranes from oxidative damage. The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 20-16-00101.

В статье представлены результаты подготовительного этапа лонгитюдного исследования, посвященного жизненным траекториям семей и детей, находящихся в контакте с системой профилактики безнадзорности и правонарушений несовершеннолетних г. Санкт-Петербурга. Ввиду недостаточной определенности критериев, регулирующих работу с семьей, в нормативно-правовой документации значительную роль в дальнейшей траектории семьи и несовершеннолетнего начинает играть субъективная оценка ситуации специалистом. Для понимания оснований этой оценки мы провели серию из 11 полуструктурированных экспертных интервью со специалистами Санкт-Петербурга, представляющими разные органы, входящие в систему профилактики безнадзорности и правонарушений несовершеннолетних. При оценке благополучия специалисты использовали как объективные, так и субъективные критерии, которые соответствуют современным научным и практическим тенденциям в понимании этого явления. В ходе интервью подтвердилась гипотеза о высокой субъективности принятия решений и значительной роли специалиста в развитии дальнейшей жизненной траектории семьи. Специалисты продемонстрировали понимание благополучия, созвучное современным представлениям о данном феномене. Они убеждены, что благополучие и неблагополучие семьи определяет благополучие или неблагополучие ребенка, проживающего в ней. Медиаторами благополучия и неблагополучия являются ресурсы (внутренние, внешние) семьи и ребенка. В представлении специалистов семья, соответствующая существующим в обществе нормам, — залог благополучия ребенка. Сообразно этим убеждениям, неблагополучная семья, а именно семья, отклоняющаяся от норм, формирует неблагополучие ребенка. Необходимо дальнейшее исследование критериев и стадий (не)благополучия и выделение индикаторов, позволяющих специалисту ориентироваться в принятии решения о возможностях дальнейшей работы с семьей или ребенком. Благодарность. Исследование выполнено в рамках проекта «Социальные траектории детства в современной России», поддержанного грантом Российского научного фонда № 16-18-10372.