The experts are in all areas of human activity: scientific, technical, construction, architectural, environmental, judicial, medical, quality of goods and services, etc.[2]. This determines the differences in content of labor. The subject of the work is the research work, technical product, material evidence, the process and the outcome of treatment, buildings, structures, etc. In the process of labor experts use equipment, machinery, apparatus, chemicals, knowledge, experience, and information technology. The result of work can be both numeric and non-numeric scores, rankings, classifications. It may make recommendations and conclusions on the management decisions [1]. The work of the experts is governed by regulations and procedures.

During the examination of the quality of scientific content of the work can objectify part. Some elements of the expert to formalize it - estimation algorithm, the application of the evaluation criteria, etc. The work of the expert depends on the experience, knowledge, intuition and foresight. Formalization several objectifies rate but simultaneously facilitates its lossy. Expert guided by the requirements of conformity passport specialty of the Higher Attestation Commission (WAC). He may find that the name of the research work must comply with the wording and the words literally passport. Where then, will undertake new research topics of work? Whether this will develop science? Judge faced with a repeatability errors, defects. Error detection can be algorithmization, identify signs and signals cause them to miss. But the absolution of this approach again, there is a danger of formalization. Thus, the expert is always balancing between subjectification and formalization.

Therefore, great importance is the identity of the weight and reputation of the expert You can not replace expert "Anti-plagiarism" can be a scandal, to draw attention, but can not replace the expertise of [3].[1] One expert HAC algorithm characterizes his work - "importance a reputation of the university, where the protection of scientific work, who is the leader and who is the opponent and their reputation in the scientific community, the correct formulation of scientific novelty of the work: it is determined proven set, etc. then the work is recommended for approval." Understand the style of work of an expert can be, he is forced to deal with the flow of work, but it is a formal assessment.

The peculiarity of the nature of work is dependent on expert human sympathy. Although the peer review should be unbiased, expert has to consider corporate features. Expert opinions in Russia is often given as an acquaintance. Not always behind this something negative (eg bribery). Expert, "working" on familiar, I'm sure he would not have known evaluate poor job. Search in this circle are selected carefully enough. There are abuses, such conditions are required so that the reputational loss experts were significantly heavier than the loss of friendships. You can endorse the action of the Higher Attestation Commission, aimed at increasing publicity, transparency experts and "technical" software reputational losses.

On expert opinion may affect its utility dependence on the leaders. Not all are able to withstand the pressure, do not take into account the possible inhibition of career development, the deterioration of working conditions and so on. The expert also takes into account the fact that today it is the expert, and the next time will be subject to examination by his students or himself.

Work of the expert scientific papers fraught with risks: risk estimation error due to the limited knowledge, risk the balance between the formal requirements and the actual work being,

risk protection, by which we mean the pressure dating, human sympathy or pity, administrative pressure, that is all that is irrelevant to the work, t available at: exposure to fluctuations in claims supervisor.

The last three types of risk can and should be reduced, thus improving the quality of examinations papers.

2. Orlov A.I.Organizatsionno and economic modeling. Part 2. Expert estimates. Moscow, Publisher Bauman im.N.E. Bauman, 2011, P.37-8. URL: http://www.mtas.ru/theory/orlov2011a.pdf (date accessed 29.05.2013)

3. Privalov А. About minobrovskom big jumps. Judge, 2013, Number 22, S. 10.