On the basis of analysis of scientistsʼ opinions, the determination of concept of judicial expertology as a separate science is given in this article. Discussions in regard to an object and a subject of new science, its system, tasks and principles are continuing for today. In spite of variety of opinions of scientists in relation to the degree of forming of judicial expertology as separate science, for today we consider it as an independent science, that is the system of knowledge about realization conformities of judicial examinations and facilities and methods of research of different sort of material objects, processes or phenomena based on them. To our mind, the system of judicial expertology consists of general part as basis of theoretical knowledge and special, in which this theoretical knowledge is directed to the determination of problems of realization of examinations in practice. In general part must be included the following: forming and development of studies about forensic examination; object, system, task and principles of judicial expertology; its essence and place in the system of scientific knowledge; studies about the methods of expert research; systematization and classification of knowledge in judicial expertology; expert technique; theory of expert prognostication; expert prophylaxis; concept and general description of expert methodologies; psychological bases of expert research and expert errors. The special part must include methodologies of the implementation of separate types of forensic examinations: by criminalistics, technical, economic, commodity expert, in the field of intellectual property, psychological, study of art, ecological, military etc. Certainly, a structure of the special part is the dynamic system and can change with the origin of new types of forensic examinations. For today there are two conceptions in relation to essence and place of forensic expertology in the system of sciences. The most widespread is opinion of scientists of relatively legal nature of forensic expertology. Other conception consists of attributing of forensic expertology to the so-called synthetic or hybrid sciences that unite or synthesize in it the variety of other areas of knowledge. Forensic expertology has separated from criminalistics and became the independent science. Today there are discussions concerning legal nature of criminalistics. If it so, then to our mind, there cannot be any doubts relatively synthetic nature of forensic expertology, as exactly it accumulates knowledge of other areas of knowledge, foremost natural and technical sciences. In conclusion, it is possible to say that forensic expertology is the independent area of knowledge that is related to hybrid or integrative sciences and synthesizes in itself the complex of social, natural and technical sciences.