Dissertation councils in our republic covering various scientific fields regularly discuss submitted works, write conclusions, and conduct defense processes. As a result, excluding a small number of rejections most applicants receive the title of scientist. However, are all those who receive this title and diploma truly worthy of it, and are all the conclusions written and all the discussions conducted truly serious, objective, and in line with the requirements? Unfortunately, it is impossible to give a positive reply to these questions. Sometimes, in debates held in the press and on social media, the idea is expressed that there is no need for a Higher Attestation Commission, and that, as in most foreign countries, this work should be organized in our country at the level of universities and research institutions, and dissertations should be evaluated, and academic degrees awarded, based on the conclusions of experts from a specialized scientific council of the institution. Certainly, it would be great if this were the case, and applicants would be spared the need to navigate a series of bureaucratic hurdles. In fact, that's exactly how it was back then. In the 1940s, after defending a dissertation, at the end of this very meeting, if a person was deemed worthy his academic status would be confirmed, and the corresponding certificate would be signed and issued without delay. However, given the current state of dissertation debate in Azerbaijan, it's not hard to imagine the picture such a defense would create. Indeed, the fact that the initial discussions, opinions, seminar review of dissertations, opponents' opinions, and even the final defense process are characterized by extreme concessions – in a sense, laissez-faire – and an overly liberal approach to this highly sensitive issue opens the door to the devaluation of science. In other words, these processes have been underway for a long time, and an objective approach reveals that a significant portion of dissertations and their authors which have received positive reviews over the past 30 years, completely fail to meet high scientific standards. During the Soviet period, final dissertation approval was centralized throughout the USSR; dissertations from the republics were reviewed and sent for additional approval to the All-Union Higher Attestation Commission. Knowing that these processes would occur in advance forced local defense councils to be more responsible and organize discussions more carefully. Indeed, fraud and forgery were occasionally observed within the Higher Attestation Commission of the USSR, as were instances of corruption scandals. However overall, the existence of such a supreme oversight mechanism prevented many negative phenomena. During the period of independence, the Higher Attestation Commission of the Republic has come a long way, gradually eliminating shortcomings, and today, despite the fact that a number of flaws and subjective shortcomings remain in its activities, it proves the justification for its existence. The absence of this institution today would lead to far more serious complications in our scientific community. In today's scientific reality, we need this institution; we must continue to refine and improve it. In the future, when we are convinced that university dissertation councils with the desired prestige, level, and objectivity similar to those existing in neighboring Turkey will be established in our country, we will be able to abandon the Higher Attestation Commission. Our current task is to make the Higher Attestation Commission more efficient. To achieve this, first and foremost, all dissertation review processes must be conducted at the highest scientific level from the very beginning. Conclusions must be honest, uncompromising, and scientifically sound. Approaches to these conclusions must be free from naivety, and serious errors and negligence in conclusions must be eradicated. I currently have before me materials relating to the defense of two scholars, a long-standing case whose names have become classics of our scientific history: transcripts, conclusions, comments made during discussions, minor criticisms from opponents (to use the currently fashionable slang), and, again, documents reflecting a healthy scholarly debate rather than the traditional immediate acceptance of any answer by the challengers. Unfortunately, such defenses are almost never encountered these days. Both of these defenders, Mubariz Alizada and Ekrem Jafar, once taught at the Faculty of Oriental Studies. Perhaps, as an example, we will also publish materials relating to these defenses in our journal. I am positive that Azerbaijan already has a fairly high, perhaps even higher ratio of people defending dissertations and receiving academic degrees in various fields of science relative to the population. These figures have increased sharply, especially over the past three decades, during the period of independence. It's time to focus our full attention on quality. Even if the number of people defending and receiving academic degrees decreases by two to three times compared to the current level, let each of them be a researcher worthy of the name of a true scientist, each of them a researcher whose work enriches our science. In any case, with the change of generations, the pseudoscientists of yesteryears will gradually disappear, and if we focus only on training worthy scientists now, they will become the leading figures in our science tomorrow. And tomorrow, in our scientific community where they are present, there will be no need to give recommendations on what to do and how to do it, or to express wishes on how to get rid of such obstacles as our current shortcomings – a healthy mechanism will work on its own!