text:
Where did I lose control of my studies?
I am a 5th MSc semester mathematics student at a local German university. Since fall, I have been working on my thesis, which is the only remaining task for finishing my studies.
I had not had particular difficulties during my studies, apart from the usual struggling and doubts I suppose every student undergoes: before my masters studies, I had spent 7 semesters at another university on two BScs in physics and mathematics. I am paid by a public scholarship. I had decided to change the university for my master's half for personal reasons and half in order to have a greater choice in courses held. My average score is 1.5 at the moment, which also had been my final score for the two BScs.
Now that I have started my thesis, nearly everything has changed: I am working with a professor whose courses I took several of, all with good grades, so she did not object to supervising my thesis. Although I have not had severe problems with my studies before, I am getting nowhere with my work now:
For understanding a single paper I am supposed to work on I sometimes need weeks, let alone the questions posed to me to think on, which I sometimes spend weeks without any serious results I could present. I have the impression that I am lacking creativity, intuition and a sufficient knowledge which I think I should have acquainted during my courses.
My problems have driven me into particular personal problems: I have lost contact with most of my former colleagues I used to spend every weekend with, partially because they seem to have lost interest in spending time with me, and partially because my mind is governed by thinking of my inferior scientific performance and the conviction no one wants to have to do with such a poor student. I cannot enjoy leisure time since I permanently have to think of the open problems that haven't worked out over a long time. I cannot claim to have chosen a university where I am competing with the best.
For 1½ months I have been taking antidepressives and having psychotherapy, which barely helps to soften the biggest peaks of auto-aggression and contemplating self-harm, but have not yet helped me to find another view on what I'm doing.
TL;DR
Although my university performance seemed sufficient for me not to worry much about it, starting working on my master's thesis has revealed a vast lack of mathematical knowledge and poor mathematical working capabilities. The longer I work on it, the more I lose any self-esteem.
Question: Where should I have foreseen my problems? Which signs did I ignore? Where did I miss to put things on the right track? And: how shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?

Your questions are wrong. You are not thinking too little about this but too much. You need to take a break and get your mind set right.

The first question I would ask is -- do you still enjoy your research? Is it interesting?  If the topic you are studying does not seem interesting to you after this much study, it is time to talk to your advisor about switching to something else.  But if it's still interesting to you, and you are still motivated, it's not that bad of a sign to take weeks to read a paper, not make much progress, etc.  This is normal.

I feel compelled to say this. You need to give yourself a break. Regardless of the answer that you receive here, your health, well-being, and happiness are not worth the sacrifice. You seem very intelligent from what I can glean from your post, and I'm sure you have many qualities that attracted your friends and peers to begin with. As you said, you're working with someone who knew your capabilities. Your peers already believed that you were fun to spend time with. You're just stressed and that's okay. It's normal. Be kind to yourself, refresh your mind, and relax. It will be okay.

Could the TL;DR be at the top?  I read it all the way through before scrolling down and noticing the TL;DR, which is quite pointless by then.

All of the answers so far cover most of what I would want to say, so I won't add another one to make just a small additional point. Context: I suffered depression for a large portion of my US PhD, which took 8.5 years from when I enrolled with just my BS (program average was 6 years). Once I decided to pursue psychological counseling, things picked up rapidly, but I was matched with a very appropriate therapist. My suggestion is to assess whether your therapy sessions are productive, and consider switching therapists if you and your current one conclude they are not.

@SimplyBeautifulArt - you need a bigger screen :)

Remember that being at the forefront of any discipline is, by definition, hard:  if it weren't the results would be old news rather than something you have to pour over for weeks to understand or create yourself.

I just read an interesting article regarding Mathematics, called Lockhart's Lament.  See if this makes sense to you.

Remember that you are more than your academic performance :)
Hard to believe it when you were never told that, and sometimes studies make you feel like you are your performances

If you think you lack in mathematical research abilities, you could try the book - 'How to Solve It' by George Polya. It teaches how to approach problem solving in mathematics and is a great read

Don't break yourself over any one thing in life. And this is breaking you. Take a step back and diversify your attention among other things. Reconnect with your colleagues. Spend some time on other interests, activities, and hobbies. You won't be able to contribute well to the world -- or research, for that matter -- like this.

This is a bucketload of anxiety. How hard is you thesis problem? I have a company that is just getting of the ground and it's taken others years to solve similar computer science/math based problems. In some cases, a decade. What you need to do, is hit the reset button to clear your head. Talk to some others who are working on equally difficult problems to see if you really are taking to long. Study up on the math as papers, books, and (at a university) people are always available. Finally, find a companion (even love interest) that rips you away for small chunks of the day. It helps.

Regarding "which barely helps": Note that antidepressants do commonly take more time than 1.5 month to find the right dose, and possibly the effect to ramp up can take month. And not all work for a specific person.

I don't have the reputation to post an answer, but I would like to point you to a resource that help me tremendously when I hit a first academic bump: Carol S. Dweck's "Self-Theories". In essence it makes you understand that the primary thing you are missing is a theory about yourself in the face of failure. Coming to terms with your own limits is something that is challenging for everyone and it is an important psychological step to understand that it is a great achievement to reach the point were things are no longer easy.

Nothing you've described sounds like a serious academic problem.  Taking weeks to understand a paper, and working on a problem for weeks without results, are entirely normal in research mathematics.  And there is always a large gap between what you learn in coursework and what you need for research.
Trying to get better by just working harder or longer can be counterproductive.  It is important to spend time on other things, even when you feel like you're way behind.
Clearly you have some problems with mental health right now.  I'm not qualified to advise you on that, but it's good that you're getting professional help, and it's only been 1.5 months - such issues don't usually get "cured" as quickly as that.  Even if it takes time to get better and delays your academic progress, that's not a major problem.  Academia works on very long timescales and several months of low productivity is nothing in the big picture.
At the end of the day, maybe you'll decide you just don't like doing mathematics research.  That's okay too, there are lots of other things you can do with your life.  Math is particularly difficult in this regard, in that math coursework has a very different flavor from doing research (exercises with short elegant solutions, versus long messy problems with awkward solutions that only accomplish half of what you really want).  Liking coursework is not necessarily a good indication of the same for research, so a lot of people do leave the field at this stage.  Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
Professional mathematicians tend to be people who really do enjoy doing mathematics research, and they tend to describe the work in terms that make it sound like it is inherently enjoyable and anyone that doesn't like it must be broken somehow.  But that's not true.  If you get better and discover that you enjoy it, great.  If not, that's great too.

Research mathematics is hard.  Most mathematicians spend months or years on a problem and fail to solve most of the problems they attempt.

Also - to address your title question - research (and not only in mathematics) cannot be controlled - by you, your advisor, or anyone else.  The best we can do is to nudge the odds slightly more in our favor.  If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.

+1 for "Taking weeks to understand a paper, and working on a problem for weeks without results, are entirely normal in research mathematics". Also, depression typically causes "brain fog", making it difficult to think and learn normally. Once your depression is properly controlled, you may find that your brain is much "smarter".

This. Your advisor has given you difficult reading now. It's hard work! Take your time. Learn deeply. The most you can give is your presence and you should give your time and presence to learning the material. And be honest with your struggle with the material with your advisor.

Taking weeks to understand a paper, and working on a problem for weeks without results, are entirely normal in research mathematics. - For most of  papers I read, I feel like understanding them takes me closer to years, not weeks.

I'm not in the business of remote diagnostics, but you sound like you are suffering from (mild) burn-out. You also sound like you are trapped in a vicious circle: setting (momentarily) over-ambitious goals, failing, losing trust in yourself, trying to prove yourself by setting over-ambitious goals -- rinse, leather, repeat.
Break the circle by taking a long vacation and find something that you enjoy. Perhaps other goals outside work, but maybe even better: A real treat that has nothing to do with achievement. Something just for you to feel good. You might want to involve your supervisor to some extent, at least by telling them that you are exhausted and need to take some time off in order to recharge.
But most of all: Seek counsel. Pick up the phone and talk to those old friends. Find out who is in charge of social-psychological counseling at your university (mostly "Sozialpsychologischer Dienst" at German universities) and make an appointment now. You are already in therapy, which is a great, if overdue decision. This will help, but it takes more time than nine weeks to change those harmful cognitive and behavioral patterns that you might have become accustomed to. You need some patience here.
In addition to resolving some more deep-seated issues through therapy, you might want to consider private coaching to address more technical problems. I had good success with a writing coach when I had a bad case of depressing writer's block during the last stage of my PhD.
You might also want to team up with others more often when reading difficult papers. It makes the thinking easier, and it's less lonely. Finally, many papers are just really hard and even bright students need weeks to figure them out. Don't beat yourself up; just try to adjust your expectations. Also in this regard, teaming up with others helps as a reality check.
Related questions:

How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?
"I've somehow convinced everyone that I'm actually good at this" - how to effectively deal with Imposter Syndrome
How do you come to terms with the fact that you might never be among the best in your research community?

The book "Deep Work" by Cal Newport presents several effective strategies to help with this kind of thinking work, and also strategies for limiting burnout.  Might be helpful.

Slight nitpick: this is not called burnout. Burnout is when you wake up one morning so exhausted you have trouble getting out of bed. The crisis described doesn't seem to be so acute, but just as severe.

First of all, you're doing the right thing by reaching out and asking the community for the best way to proceed. There are people out there to help you! Many, many students have gone through similar situations and have found a way out. But first, let me address some of your questions.

Where should I have foreseen my problems?

It sounds like one of the reasons you're struggling is being relatively new to research. Trying to discover something new is very, very different from taking courses, since you're working at the frontier of your discipline. That means it's hard - for everyone. In theory, you could have learned the difficulty of doing research by trying it out earlier (when the thesis wasn't hanging over your head) - but it's definitely not too late to adjust!

Which signs did I ignore? Where did I miss to put things on the right
  track?

When you're spending weeks of your time feeling that you're not making any progress, it's probably time to talk to your advisor/grad students/someone experienced and ask for their advice. This is far better than struggling on your own and feeling worthless.

How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself
  incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?

Regaining self-confidence is really important. The fact that you've been struggling does not mean you're incapable of doing research. I can think of several reasons why things have not been well, none of which are impossible to overcome:

You might not have the necessary background

This would explain why reading papers takes so long. Start by identifying general topics discussed/used in the literature you need to understand. It's really hard to understand them from the work itself (I've been there), so I would recommend looking for more general resources like textbooks, online courses, etc. Once you understand the fundamentals, it will be much easier to understand what the authors are trying to do. And no, you weren't necessarily supposed to get it all from your courses, since some of the topics may be specific to your particular area of work.

This particular area is not your calling

Many scientists change research areas and even disciplines several times before finding the one they like. If you are not excited by your work, that's ok! It might or might not be too late in the year to switch to a different area altogether, but in either case, the fact that this particular line of work has not been successful does not mean others will not be much easier/better suited for your interests.

The problem you're working on is really hard

Since you're not an experienced researcher who has spent decades in the field, it is expected (by most people, at least) that you cannot just jump in and start cracking complicated math problems people have been working on for years. Maybe your problem is just really difficult! I'd say, at this point the most important thing for you is to finish your degree without completely destroying your nerves and your ability to perform research at any point in the future. That means - pick a problem you can solve! Even if it's really small, this little personal victory might help you remember what it's like to actually solve something. Then, think of the smallest possible set of problems you need to solve in order to put together a thesis. If you can do something other than what you've been doing, that might help. If not, get the background knowledge you need (see the first bullet point), break down your tasks into small parts, and ask for advice if you run into roadblocks!
Most importantly, don't be too hard on yourself. Research is hard, and you've experienced that first hand. And remember, you are not alone. I've found MIT graduate student blog to be very helpful, since oftentimes students share their own struggles - and how they learned to cope. So definitely check it out and best of luck!

It is completely normal to feel stupid when doing research.  Often, you cannot see how to solve a problem right away.  Sometimes it takes a long time to even figure out what the problem is.  This is part of doing research.  It is maddening at times.  It is depressing at times.  You are creating new knowledge and mastering new knowledge on the edge of knowledge advancement.
It is not at all like learning at an undergraduate level, where the answers exist somewhere and have been filtered through textbooks, better explanations, real applications, and analogy.
I recommend this short essay article from the Journal of Cell Science:  "The importance of stupidity in scientific research"
I also recommend Barbara Oakley's new MOOC "Mindshift: Break Through Obstacles to Learning and Discover Your Hidden Potential"

I tend to say this even more strongly: If you don't feel stupid, you aren't doing research.

I am not in the field of mathematics myself, but as an outsider, I think mathematics is very hard and what you are describing sounds pretty normal for a mathematician. Only I think you set a bar way too high for a master thesis. Five semesters for a masters program sounds pretty hardcore to me. This is not a PhD. Your mindset at this point should be to "get it done!". Focus on getting your diploma as fast as possible and getting it over with. Masters courses are not designed to get students to make scientific discoveries. If you want that, go for a PhD after you get your masters degree.
Also, check if your meds have dizziness, drowsiness, etc. side effects. Those will chemically turn your brain off. I can't do intellectual work even if I take cold meds.
Finally, if you haven't seen it yet, watch A Beautiful Mind (2001). As you do that, remember the main character there is arguably the greatest mathematician ever, he is doing a PhD in a world's top university, and he is still struggling.

" Masters courses are not designed to get students to make scientific discoveries" Are you sure about this? As I understand, the purpose of pure math masters is to get you ready for the start of a PhD.

@MarkoKarbevski What I mean is that there isn't enough time to get them to discover something while they are doing masters. Even if they do discover something, they would need to review all relevant literature to make sure it hasn't been done before, do all the proofs, write it up, wait for months or years for peer review. I just don't see how you would push a student to do all this within a masters course.

Great answer.  Consider a different project or a different advisor.  Inform your prescribing doctor about symptoms and possible side effects.  Anti-depressants take at least six weeks to show improvement, and they don't always yield improvement.  You might benefit from a different drug or a different dosage.  Print out your question here and give it to your doctor.

The OP is from Germany. While in many  (English speaking) contries the research progress is mostly made by professors or Ph.D. students, in Germany traditionally much of the research efford has been done by Diploma students, so the Dipl. math. is not much less than a Ph.D. in other countries. In the recent years, one wanted to make the German degrees comparable to English ones in the Bologna reform, so one often "renamed" the Dipl. math. to MSc. (a proper reform would not have been politically feasible in all universities). So the OP's MSc is not the thing you think of.

@HorstGrünbusch, I agree with your warning to not directly compare degrees in Germany with those elsewhere, but even a Diplomarbeit in mathematics did not need to be something that would have contained results that would have been new in the sense that you would require for a journal publication. Mine certainly did not, and while one might say that later on I was not good enough as a research mathematician, I was also not really bad. Among the publications that I have to my name are some that I am actually proud of. (Part of this was of course more directed to the OP than to you.)

The part that I agree with is that mathematics is hard.

TL;DR: Be superficial with papers. Most of them aren't important anyway. Try to catch the broad idea or the reason why you don't need them. Focus on few important ones and don't worry to spend weeks on each of these.
Follow any idea you get.
Cut your topic in parts some of which are easy to solve. Discuss the partition with your prof.
Don't focus on psychology but on mathematics and some fun.

@Nate Eldredge said "there is a large gap between what you learn in coursework and what you need for research." I want to deepen this because it might give you some hints where your mathematical thinking might still be too much student-like and too less researcher-like.
As a student, you are focused on achieving your exercises and exams. Both are closely connected to the matter of the respective lecture, so the lecture's content always gives hints on how to solve the tasks: The intended solutions often apply a theorem from the lecture or mimic a proof of such a theorem. There is few incentive to use knowledge from other fields, because such problems would be too hard for students that happen not to have (yet) studied the other field. So "exam knowledge" is often detailed but narrow.
Research questions don't give such hints. In fact, innovative and cool research often consists of applying thoughts from an alien field to an old problem. So for research work, your mathematical knowledge needs to be a broad overview without focusing too much on details. You need to know what is in your mathematical toolbox. You don't need do know how each tool works in detail, since once you find a useful tool-thought, you can and will easily afford some months to work out the details in a rigorous way.
This leads to another important skill for mathematical research. It is that paper reading you are struggling with. You say you take too much time to understand them thoroughly. But this is normal. Therefore, nobody (well, except the peer reviewers, I hope, and the ones who want to improve exactly its result) ever tries to understand a paper thoroughly. Most of the time a superficial understanding is sufficient to know why you don't have to consider a particular paper any more. Find brief words of this superficial understanding for the discussion with your prof and later for your thesis and then move on to the next paper. In the end, there will be only a handful of important papers for your thesis. Once you have them identified, don't worry about some weeks to study each of them thoroughly.
If any paper triggers some --maybe unrelated-- idea to you, feel free to follow this thought for some hours. Make some notes about it, they may come in handy later on. Also this way you exercise getting ideas apart from the guidance of a lecture.
Unfortunately, many professors aren't aware that paper reading is a skill students might need help to get accustomed at. So tell your professor what you understand and what not. What does she think of a paper you both read?
Another important research skill is to cut your overall research topic in separate small chunks and find the specific research question to answer (in this order!). Half of the chunks are ideas you have already in your toolbox, half of them are "real work" you'll solve somehow. Discuss these things with your professor. On some things she'll give you some hints ("I know this is not feasible because...", "yes, this might work with the idea in paper ...") and on some things she'll show you that you aren't that bad as a researcher because she doesn't have a clue as well.
So your questions: "Which signs did I ignore?" -- In one of my final exams, the professor asked me about the broad idea of a theorem without formulas. I knew the mathematical proof but I wasn't able to "proof by picture". This worsened my grade but taught me an important lesson about research thinking I am still thankful for. Maybe you happened to miss something like that.
"Where did I miss to put things on the right track?" -- You did not. It's still the right time to adjust your way of working as mentioned above. Also, reiterating the other's answers take breaks, do some sports, meet friends. This "rearranges" your thoughts. I get many of my ideas cycling in the countryside.
"How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else?" -- Focus on mathematics, not on your psychological condition or on the treatment. That's the  psychologist's job, not yours. If you want to solve a mathematical problem, your sorrows about "value in yourself" is of no concern, it's rather a distraction.

As a current student studying computer science, sometimes when working on bigger and more serious projects, I as well feel like creativity is missing and the knowledge that was lectured by the professors is not enough. The first step to those type of problems (this is entirely in my opinion) is to stop and to acknowledge that what you got is not enough. You will need to dig harder in order to succeed in your projects. On my recent project that took almost 6 months to develop, 2.5 of those months were like a hole. Nothing I was doing was productive but took some time to reflect and plan exactly step-by-step what I needed and I got it done. My advice to you is that you need to plan small steps to achieve the final goal, which in your case is the thesis, and the time where you think you're not productive nor creative don't think it's negative, by the contrary, it's normal.

Any or all of the other answers may be correct, but here's one additional idea:  You said you are on anti-depressants.  This implies that something physiological is messing with your brain.  If so, it may also be interfering with your ability to concentrate and reason.  Some anti-depressants can also have that effect.

I find it extremely important to add that (1) medication also may not have this effect, (2) do not stop taking, or change dosage, of a medication as serious as an anti-depressant without consulting a doctor, and (3) the idea that you must choose between unhealthy behavior and greatness, or healthy behavior and normalcy, is completely false and unfortunately over-romanticized.

Absolutely.  Consult a psychiatrist.  Don't assume that the possibility I suggested is the only explanation.  And don't be embarrassed by the word "psychiatrist."  The people constantly called "psychiatrists" on TV are NOT.  They are psychologists.

As the OP felt the problems before treatment it is impossible that these are a side effect of the medication in this case.

There are a lot of very good answers here, especially the suggestion to take a break, but I would like to point out one important take away from my personal experience: Return to your motivation. Research in general is not only difficult and frustrating for everyone (even those who put on a good face), but also is constantly evolving be nature, which makes people who are at any given moment not moving forward feel like imposters even though this non-differentiable progress is part of the process. Use the knowledge of this psychological paradox to ease your mind, and then review your motivations.
I also double majored in physics and mathematics, and I earned a masters in computer science afterwards. I then worked for 3 years at an R&D firm and am now back earning my PhD in Robotics. I changed my field a few times, albeit in small moves, because as I reviewed the problems I was taking on I realised that my original perceptions oI can tell you with certainty that through this entire process I have gotten into a rabbit hole with my work more than once, and there are a few solutions, but the most helpful one for me is to return to the original questions. Ask yourself:

What problem was I originally trying to examine? and why? I know as a masters student you don't often have a lot of say in what you are doing, but you often have more control over how you do it then you think.
Why was I interested in this, were my original perceptions about what made this problem interesting correct, and what has changed about my understanding of the problem given what I know doesn't work? This question is extremely important because if you return to the original problem with your new-found knowledge you will likely find that, given what you now know, you would have probably taken a different approach.

The answers to these questions will make you feel a lot less "boxed in", and if you end up wanting to continue pursuing this question, it will give you a lot of clarity on your next steps.
To your specific questions:

Where should I have foreseen my problems? Realistically, you couldn't have. People who have success anticipating and avoiding failure fall squarely into 2 categories: people who are lucky and people who have failed a lot and pulled themselves up. Anyone who seems otherwise is masking the truth, or you don't know their whole story. Remember, all research is like 5% success, 70% failing and moving on, and 25% failing and trying again. You should never feel alone, as you aren't. We researchers are here with you :)
Which signs did I ignore? In all likelihood, none. I have a huge problem with this aspect of research; that the results are all that is exposed to the outside world, and the process is so separate from everything. I suggest it to everyone, but you have got to read The PhD Grind by Phillip Guo. This guy graduated from MIT with incredible success, went to Stanford for his PhD, and a few months in immediately felt his world collapsing around him. He documents his struggles, his good times and bad, and how he eventually came out after taking the time (much longer than he expected) to figure out what really drove him and how to live his life in spite of feeling like his ideas didn't always pan out. It is what motivated to go back to academia after I left, and could really help (its free, and a very quick read!)
Where did I miss to put things on the right track? Common misconception: there isn't a right track, it just feels that way because you see other people and think "Thats where I should be. That is right" It isn't (see the first bullet point), it is just there track, and you have yours. Not to get too philosophical, but we are here for a limited time, and there is no knowing how what we do will effect the future. As such, the "right track" for you must be a more holistic gauge; continue trying things, continue caring about yourself and the world around you, do not remain idle, and you will find that you will be able to look back on your "track" proud of the path you took.
How shall I find value in myself, now that I have found myself incapable of pursuing research, and have lost everything else? Finding value in ones self is a hard pursuit, and do not pay attention to those who trivialize it or propose a quick "silver bullet" answer. I believe firmly, however, that you can find value in action (see above). Pursue life relentlessly, and you will find that the question is not about finding value in general, but finding it in what you do, whether you succeed or otherwise. That might be this research, it might be different research, and it might not be research at all (never forget that there are many companies that would kill for your skill set), but as long as you continue pursuing value and pursuing your path, there is value in the pursuit itself.

I also would like to say that while it may seem as though you have "lost everything else", not only is all that is lost recoverable, but as you are a masters student there is so much more life that you will engage as you continue forward, no matter your field or interests. You say you are a poor student, but objectively you aren't as your studies demonstrate (see above, research is hard!). You say that professors don't want to work with you, but I assure you that professors are very willing to give students a chance with little background (else how did we all get started?! :) ). Lastly, you say that your colleagues are disinterested, but remember what people want from each other: engagement, empathy, sympathy, and support. The minute you stop letting your rabbit hole swallow you whole and you reconsider your motivations, you will find not only clarity in your problem and your path, but you will also find that separating yourself from your work is just as important as doing work. Good luck, and never stop asking for support and help.

Good point. I think the more ambitious the topic is the more control the MSc student actually has over it.

I have spent lot of time in research projects. So what you are going through is completely normal. As it is research, you need to go through lot of material, digest them and wrap your head around them and then spend lot of thinking time to apply them to your context. There will be lots of ups and downs, failures, restarts, feelings of inadequacy when you are unable to think through. You need to accept this as part and parcel of doing research.
How I coped with this? When doubts came, I reminded myself that people saw something in me which made them accept me for such work. The more time you spend doubting yourself, the less time you have to think with clarity on your actual work. Secondly, I consumed myself with reading - the more I realized I didn't know, the more I read.The more doubts I had, the more I experimented. That way I found so many ways of not doing something. The process of elimination leads to the right way. There is always light at the end of the tunnel. Thirdly, I spent some time doing what I liked whenever I had any mental block.
Research is overwhelming but as you have been accepted for it, that itself is a great affirmation that you can do it. My advice is avoid the pitfall of negative thinking and promise yourself that you will not waste a single minute entertaining thoughts which are not related to your research.


text:
How to Cite Hardware in Scientific Articles?
I am writing a scientific article. In the "materials and methods" section I must specify the hardware I used, namely an HP Pavilion dv6 Notebook PC (I also specified the details of its features).
Now my doubt:
Should I use bibliographic citations (such as when mentioning a software, book, or scientific article) when I mention the hardware?
What is standard (if any) for such cases?
Thanks in advance for any help and/or suggestion.
P.S.
I use APA standards for bibliographic references, although the question is independent of that subject.

There is a line to be drawn regarding which things that you used get to be cited.
What deserves to be cited/mentioned?

The experimental hardware? A mention definitely, but a bibliography entry--probably not.
The PC you conducted measurements on? If the PC specs are relevant, yes. Again, why would you need to add a bibliography entry for that? If it is specifically mentioned that hardware need to be specified, then supply basic information like: Desktop PC with Intel Core i7 Processor (4x 2.0 GHz) and 4 GB DDR4 RAM.
The digital camera you took pictures with? Nobody mentions that.
Edit: Apparently, sometimes people do, as salehgeek pointed out in his comment. As for the other points, I was talking about my field (engineering). I have never seen anyone mention the camera they photographed their samples with, but some may do that. Personally, I find it superfluous.
The software you used for processing the results? If it does something special (e.g. a simulation tool) yes, but nobody cites Word, Excel or LaTeX in their papers.

In my field (engineering) the machines get mentioned in the experimental part (manufacturer, model). Sometimes exact settings on the machine are provided. Instruction manuals, manufacturer documents/websites are almost never in the bibliography.
The best way for you to know what is accepted is to read related articles and see what the majority does. If it fits with your journal's guidelines, do that.

@ff524 Can you please clarify the rollback? Digital camera model are citied in scientific articles. I gave an example from the Scientific Reports journal, published by Nature.

Electrochemical   measurements were made using a potentiostat (CHI 1207A, CH Instruments, Austin, TX) at room temperature (22 +- 1C). A digital camera (12.1  megapixels,  PowerShot  SD960  IS),  which  was  used  to obtain pictures, was purchased from Canon. Dungchai, Wijitar, Orawon Chailapakul, and Charles S. Henry. "A low-cost, simple, and rapid fabrication method for paper-based microfluidics using wax screen-printing." Analyst 136.1 (2011): 77-82.

@salehgeek I flagged for the rollback, because I felt my opinion was changed in the post and that you should have commented instead. I will edit my answer, though, to reflect on your comment.

If the hardware used was funded by a grant (e.g. supercomputer) it ought to be mentioned. This would probably fall into your "relevant specs" category too.

This is an article related to Material Science (use of digital cameras for measurement of stress): The Fuji S2 Pro Digital Camera connected to a stereo microscope was used ... with 4256 × 2848-pixel maximum resolution Ju, Shen-Haw, S. H. Liu, and K. W. Liu. "Measurement of stress intensity factors by digital camera." International journal of solids and structures 43.5 (2006): 1009-1022.

@salehgeek I think you made your point. Especially in your last example, though, the camera was used to actually measure something. My original intention was to say, that a simple picture of your setup, a sample or whatever that is not part of the actual results does usually not get a mention about the camera.

You don't need to cite the computer manufacturer when mentioning that you use a certain kind of computer. In your case you don't need to cite HP in any way just because you're using an HP laptop. Honestly it's probably irrelevant but it's easy in this situation to be specific, so go ahead and be specific for the sake of reproducibility.
If you are taking advantage of a particular feature of some hardware that is unusual or so obscure that it is unlikely to be common knowledge within your field then you would probably want to cite a user manual or similar reference so another researcher could get the details if they were interested.
In empirical papers I've written in the past I've used descriptions like "Dell Opteron server with four Intel E2345 processors and 128GB of RAM" and nobody has suggested I need to be more or less specific.

Does the same argument apply to other hardware devices such as a microscope system or a digital microscope camera (which were also used in the research)?

Again, I think it depends on your audience and their knowledge. My audience knows what I mean and doesn't need or want to look anything up when I say I have a "Dell Opteron Server with four processors". Is the same true of your audience and microscope systems?

It is true in general. However, I wondered if it was a standard way of writing in scientific papers.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Should I apply for grad school at higher-ranked institutions besides the one I am working at now?
I am trying to decide about my future and it does look like a dilemma to me for the following reason: I can probably get accepted to PhD program in a good university in europe (top 30 in the subject, top 20 in general) to work with a professional supervisor that I had an experience working with and we were happy to work together. However, friends here tell me that my resume is better than the overall student in the university and I have the chance to get an admission from top 10’s. As I am conservative, I do not want to take a risk. I want to be sure if I can get admitted to PhD programs in top 10 after starting a PhD program if I did not find the university satisfying to me. I am an undergrad student.

I don’t understand why you would not apply to both.

@Dawn it’s complicated but if I apply to top 10 universities, then I will lose this chance and vice versa. So I have to choose only one

@mathvc_ I don't understand. Why can you only apply to one? It seems to me that you should apply to lots of PhD programs and then decide once you get multiple offers. This is what most people do.

@Thomas because I have to contact directly the supervisor and if I tell them that I wanna be their student, then I cannot choose between multiple offers! Moreover, I need their recommendation letter for other universities. It’s all about taking risk. Does it make sense?

@mathvc_ Please edit your question to make the dilemma clear. I do not follow your concern.

I tried to clarify the title closer to what you are actually asking, because I thought the original title suggested that you were talking about switching to another school while already a PhD student whereas the body of your question makes clear that is not the case. Please edit it if I have gotten your meaning wrong.

I have to contact directly the supervisor and if I tell them that I wanna be their student — No, you have to contact potential supervisors and tell them that if you are admitted then you would be interested in being their student.  You cannot be expected to make a commitment before even knowing what your options are.

You should apply to programs you are interested in working in, regardless of their ranking.
If you are worried about upsetting your current supervisor by letting them know you might be interested in working elsewhere, consider this: If your supervisor won't allow you to apply to other programs they are a jerk who doesn't have your best interests in mind, and you should work with someone else.
A good advisor will write you recommendation letters for any program you are interested in and let you make the decision, because it's your decision, not theirs. They are free to be disappointed if you decide to go elsewhere because they value your contributions to their lab, but they are abusive if they threaten to withhold recommendations to keep you in place. If you trust your current advisor enough to work with them in the future as a graduate student, you should also expect that they will be willing to write recommendations for you for any programs you are interested in.
That said, it would be both impolite and misguided for you to rank the opportunities ahead of time. You should not attend an institution just because it is "top XX" on some measure of rankings: you should attend the institution where you are most likely to learn and produce good work. A key element of that is the selection of your advisor. Working with a helpful advisor who has your best interests in mind is going to be a far better learning experience for you, regardless of "rank" of the institution.

Yes! Every good advisor will recommend going to the program where you will have the best learning, most resources, and best chance of meeting your career goals. We want you to succeed!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Failed my professor months ago, not sure what to do now
About 8 months ago I was about to graduate university and was trying to figure out what to do with myself then. A professor asked me if I wanted to do  my masters with him and I said yes almost without thinking.
I still had classes at that moment so for about a month and a half I focused on my courses and he did not talk to me so there was little communication between the two. Due to an error in the system, my application for a masters program got delayed to January this year, rather than July, when it was originally planned by both me and the professor. I was taking 2 highly accelerated courses, one of which was a grad course, so I in between the stress and my own ignorance I neglected dealing with that issue until it was too late.
I had an immigration status that made it so that I needed to get a job within 90 days of graduating or I would be kicked out of the country. Without talking to my professor I panicked and applied to jobs, got one and then "remembered" to tell my professor essentially a week before moving to a different city to start my job.
In other words, I told him I would work with him and then didn't communicate anything to him and then a month after went back on my word and left for a job.
This professor is the person with whom I did my undergrad thesis, so he is invaluable as a recommendation reference. But I don't think I deserve or have any right to ask him for references. Worse than that, even if I was shameless enough to ask, it is unlikely he would give me a good reference after I essentially shat on a verbal agreement and betrayed his trust by unilaterally taking fast decisions without telling him anything.
Is there anything I can do here? I messed up, I messed up horribly, but I still want to go to grad school even if at this point I probably don't deserve it.

I think you are being a little bit too hard on yourself. That said, you acted unprofessionally and were irresponsible in communicating with the professor. The prof may feel like you treated him with a lack of respect, so it is important to make it clear that you do respect him, and that your behavior was selfish and childish.
The best course of action is to come clean.

Write an email or schedule a call with the professor.
Apologize for behaving unprofessionally.
Do NOT make excuses. You can mention that you couldn't have started the masters program because of visa issues, but you should have told him as soon as you discovered that information. Remember, what you did wrong was fail to communicate. Not starting the masters is not the "crime".
Acknowledge that your behavior was unprofessional.
Thank them for their mentorship over the years. Take some time to think about what you learned from them and let them know. This demonstrates your maturity and shows that you respect and appreciate him.
Apologize again and mention that you hope that you haven't ruined the relationship.

Assuming the professor is a reasonable adult, they will accept your apology, and you may ask for a reference in the future.

You did your undergrad thesis with this professor so he knows you and your capabilities very well and you both are already close to each other. Professors don't think about students as students think about professors. In their young life, they had been through similar problems as you had.
Now go to him. No shame or regret. Just a little sorrow. Tell him that you like him very much but could not communicate because of certain reasons. Believe me, he will be happy to meet you.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Should I send professor an email clearly asking if he is going to take me in his group?
I have communicated with a professor about joining his group as a Ph.D. student. He had shown his interest and told me to apply to that school after a Skype interview, although the deadline for starting the application process for that semester had already crossed then. I had applied to that school and completed my application. However, after that, he has become reluctant about me and is not telling anything clearly even after 1.5 months since I completed my application. I went to a conference last week and send him an email asking if he was also attending the same conference and invited him to come during my talk. He replied to me two days later and said that he had another schedule at the same time, but he can meet me another time to go through my slides. We met and he told me he would contact me 1 week or two weeks later. It has been 1 week passed and I have also finished my MSc. defense and now it is very urgent for me to take a decision about what am I going to do next. In this situation, I am wondering what I should do. Should I send him an email clearly asking if he is going to take me in his group?

I had applied to that school and completed my application. However, after that, he has become reluctant about me and is not telling anything clearly even after 1.5 months since I completed my application.

In cases like this, it is not incumbent on academic staff to pre-empt administrative decisions that are made as part of the normal admission processes of the university.  You have made a formal application for admission, so there is already a process in motion that will lead to an outcome.  Presumably this professor will need to make a decision in that process, and either you will be accepted or rejected for that application.  Sending him an email asking for an answer is essentially just asking him to pre-empt the administrative decision in that process, and he probably will not be inclined to do this.
If you decide to email this professor, a better approach would be to let him know your circumstances and ask him if he has any concerns about your application that you might be able to address with further work.  If there is some reason for urgency in your application, let him know what those circumstances are, and stress that you are happy to work on any deficiencies in your application.  Be careful with the level of persistence that you show here, since your professor is certainly not required to pre-empt the normal mechanism for decisions on admissions, or give any assurances outside of the formal admissions processes.
If you are concerned that this application process is taking too long, and there is some reason for urgency on your side, another option would be to email the relevant administrators at the university that deal with this process and make a preliminary inquiry asking how long it usually takes to receive an outcome for a PhD application.  (You say that you have been waiting 1.5 months, which is about 6-7 weeks.  That is not particularly long for an admissions process for a PhD candidate.)  If the process is taking too long, you can make further inquiries with the administrators, and they will horse-whip the professor into making a decision.  It is better to have this pressure coming from them than from you.

Where can you get decisions on PhD applications in <7 weeks? In the US, it's at least that long before the interview stage, much less decisions.

@Azor Ahai: Yeah, you're probably right.  In some cases there is a lot of preliminary bartering, so that once the application goes in it has already been heavily scrutinised.  I'll edit the answer accordingly.


text:
Cite a R function/implementation from a website
I am using one-sample log-rank test in my paper. I use the implementation from this website http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r. I wonder whether I should cite this and how I can cite a function on a website in Latex.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/78329/68109, https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8098/68109, https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18787/68109

If you use a script written by someone else, it is best to acknowledge them in some way. Citations are common, and many R packages define citations explicitly. Some authors will write papers documenting the code and publish them in journals, allowing you to cite the documentation rather than the code directly. However for one-off functions like your example, these options are usually not available. The information can be included in a footnote, or you can create a full citation.
You can cite an online resource in bibtex using the @online record and include the URL and access date. I would recommend the following bibtex record for this resource:
@online{zhoucode,
  author="Mai Zhou",
  title="LogRank1 function",
  url="http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r",
  addendum="Accessed: 26 May 2020"
}

In the latex document, you can cite this using \cite{zhoucode}
This should not be the only method by which a reader can access the source code. For reproducibility, it is best to make your analysis scripts publicly available for review so that future researchers can repeat your calculations exactly, and it is best to include a footnote in your text that links to a stable repository of your code. This can be accomplished in a number of ways.

@louic in another answer recommends publishing the script as supplemental materials (with the script writer's permission) which if available is the best option because the materials will always be available with the paper. This may not always be possible or reasonable depending on journals or the amount of code.
Some scholars use Github to host their materials and analysis scripts. Github is stable, publicly accessible, and maintains a history of changes made to your analysis scripts allowing review of the process and not simply the end point. Other public code repositories such as Bitbucket and sourceforge exist but are less popular in my experience.
If you preregister your experiment and analysis through the Open Science Foundation website, they allow uploads of analysis scripts. Preregistration is useful in its own right, but uploading your analysis scripts makes them available to others in a stable repository linked to your work.
Have the internet archive save the page and link to the archived copy. This solution is far worse than the above recommendations because it doesn't show how the script was used by you, only what the source code of that function was. While other methods should be used, this method is better than nothing.

Never cite a website as only source of information. Websites are likely to disappear in a few years time (especially academic ones unfortunately), or worse: the location stays the same but the code on the website is updated or changed.
In addition to that, the one who implements the algorithm is (more often than not) not its inventor. Maybe the algorithm has a name, or is published elsewhere?
A paper where this implementation of LogRank is explained would a better source for the citation. A reader should be able to access the exact code you used. The only good solution is to include the source code in your paper's supplementary information (with the author's consent). You can still cite the website if you like, but now the paper is reproducible if it disappears or changes.


text:
Can I suggest that my professor use slides instead of writing everything on the board?
I got a newly hired professor this semester. He is a good teacher but sometimes gets in trouble explaining a new topic since he writes the big formulae on the board and misses a lot of things in the process. If a student raises a question regarding any notation, then we get to know that our thought process was totally wrong.
I want to suggest using slides, which will help students get everything correct and it will save time which is usually spent on writing everything down. Also the slides can be utilized by the students in the future too.
So I just wanted to know if it will be alright for me to suggest this change to the professor.

What part of the world are you in?

I don't understand "If a student raises a question regarding any notation, then we get to know that our thought process was totally wrong." What happens if you ask about the notation?

I removed a side conversation about being offended or not offended, as well as answers in the comments about the usefulness, or not, of slides. If y'all read the answers before writing your comment, you'd maybe see these points have already been made.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@Daron IMHO what they want to say is: there are mistakes in the formulae and it is only when someone asks about the notation that they realize it was actually wrong so they have to rethink everything

What is your role? Are you his student, coworker, supervisor, something else?

I have had professors deliberately make mistakes on the board to help them be aware of who is paying attention and keeping up with the reading. If there is assigned reading for the class, that might be a factor, and you can/should use the reading to get one version of formulae and compare with the professor’s during class.

I think answerers may also want to consider the impact of this choice on neurodivergent folks – certain methods of presenting info may be easier or harder for ND folks to understand than others. I'd caution folks against making sweeping statements about which method is better for everyone, because what works well for most neurotypical folks might not work well for neurodivergent folks, and vice versa.

@PhilippImhof I think it might mean they think the notation means one thing but in fact it means something different. This is much worse than simply not understanding the notation.

Do you have a textbook? Does the textbook contain the formulas you are talking about?

@V2Blast The same notion also applies for people with less-than-stellar vision. I know I for one hated slideshows because the print was always small and typically a bit out of focus. Whiteboards were very high-contrast and their size encourages large print/diagrams, plus you didn't have to dim the lights so you could see your own notes better.

It's fine to suggest (politely), just make sure they have the opportunity to decline without it being embarrassing. So don't suggest it in the middle of class. Either mention it in passing when you're in their office and other students aren't overhearing you, or suggest it in an email (with some nice things to say as well).

Perhaps the instructor wants you to notice the problems introduced by his "errors", rather than just silently absorbing what he shows you.  (Not that the former is necessarily the best way to encourage participation, but neither is the latter.)

You’re not in charge of delivering lectures, and if the instructor has chosen to write on the board they have reasons to do so.
Writing on a board slows the pace and is often better at retaining the attention of students.  Surely you have been in classes where the contents of too many slides is delivered at light speed.
The delivery is also less robotic and generally more engaging.

I see answers like this often when students ask if it is okay to make a suggestion to their lecturer: 'It is their job, not yours.' Students are indeed not in charge of the lectures, but that does not mean they cannot make suggestions. If a student had an honest, polite suggestion to improve their learning, I would definitely want to hear about it. IMO not wanting to even consider suggestions because 'The student is not in charge of delivering lectures' likely makes for a bad lecturer.

@Chris_abc sure and I agree this kind of feedback is important but IMO the time and place for this type of comment (when made constructively) is the end-of-class survey.  The students will then have a more holistic view of the course and the cumulative force of multiple comments at once (if this is indeed the case) will have greater effect than individual comments made at random times during the term.

The damage might already have been done at the end of the course. If the problem severely impairs the learning of students (getting formulas wrong IMO fits the bill), a lecturer should be made aware asap. Obviously not all feedback is fit to be implemented during the course (or should be implemented at all), but if the lecturer knows about problems, they may be able to provide a solution.

Something like “Having gone through the entire class, I feel that the statements of important theorems would benefit from being displayed on slides, so there can be no confusion on the assumptions or restrictions that apply to each precise result” would carry (for me at least) significant weight.  I might or might not follow this suggestion in the future, but I would seriously consider it, especially if it came from multiple students.

In my experience it is very normal for students and lecturers to communicate about the lectures, the material, and possible problems, e.g. during a break or at the end of a lecture. I have also had lecturers who were not open to feedback at all (mine and other students'), and those were often plainly bad lecturers. (I doubt it was a coincidence.)

@Chris_abc there are cohorts of instructors who never used slides so unless this one is particularly bad or thoroughly disorganized they are no different from their forebears.  My experience is that each instructor chooses a delivery format that they think is best for the entire class, whereas students would prefer a delivery method that is best for them individually (without suggesting this is the case of this OP). Changing the delivery format in bulk during the term is rarely a good idea as it may generate complaints from students who preferred the initial format.

@Chris_abc   To be clear: I use slides in my 1st year course because there are lots of images and a clear picture of the situation is essential. For upper level classes I write on the board because the explicit simple incremental steps of reaching the final form of an equation has significant pedagogical value in itself

That makes sense of course. I'm not trying to argue that writing equations on the board is always bad, it agree that it can be beneficial. I'm just confused that the consensus on this site seems to be that students can only ever make suggestions to lecturers in the end of course review.

The end-of-class survey may be useful for the instructor who is going to do a lot of these. The student has one chance. This advice is horribly one-sided.

@pipe yes it is one-sided, and rightly so. The instructor is the person responsible for the delivery of material in the course and it would be complete chaos if instructors were to constantly adjust their deliveries to the whims of every cohort.  Plus, it would also be unfair to students from different cohorts to constantly change the delivery.  While this does not preclude occasional fundamental changes in delivery, immediate changes based on comments from an unrepresentative sample of a particular student cohort are just asking for trouble.

@Chris_abc I see no consensus that it would be unreasonable for a student to comment that they're concerned about frequent corrections on the board, but "could you change the single most fundamental aspect of your lecturing process?" is simply not the kind of suggestion that can rightly be offered in mid-semester. More generally students should focus more on giving feedback than suggestions, whether during or after the semester.

@Chris_abc Try going to a restaurant and ask to see the chef after your meal to give suggestions on the cooking process. See what reaction you get.

"Writing on a board slows the pace and is often better at retaining the attention of students." – Out of curiosity, do you have any citations/evidence for the latter part of this statement?

Nonsense. If this professor is routinely flubbing formulas writing them on the board on the fly, and this routinely confuses students, it should be perfectly reasonable for the student to point this out. How the professor handles it is obviously more on them to decide than the student, but the professor should still get this feedback. This answer is "slides are bad" when what's called for is "give your professor the feedback and let them decide how best to handle it."

@Blackhawk Since the OP acknowledges “ He is a good teacher but sometimes gets in trouble explaining a new topic”, I do not think your extreme situation applies.

You can always suggest, the question is whether it will have any effect.
The issue, at its core, is that if you're a new professor, there are a million demands on your time. You need to teach, you need to write publications, you need to set up a lab, you need to hire graduate students and assistants, etc. The only reasonable solution is to make sure you are as efficient as you can possibly be, and that also means keeping the time it takes to prepare lectures to a minimum. At the same time, writing good slides for a 1-hour lecture takes around 2 hours, 2-4 times as long as it takes to just write some hand-written notes for subjects you know well. It is almost certainly a safe bet that the professor knows about Powerpoint slides, but has made the conscious decision not to use those because it takes so much time to prepare them.
But you can always try! :-)

And the time to prepare the slides can be even more if you need to draw many diagrams. Sometimes it took to me a few hours just for a single slide.

writing good slides for a 1-hour lecture takes around 2 hours — for a new professor for a new course I think it takes quite a bit longer.  I seem to recall a university where I did my PhD budgeted 8 hours preparation time per lecture.

@gerrit I think the 1-2 hours probably means that difference between writing notes and writing slides, not the total preparation time. My rule of thumb is that a one-hour lecture takes 10 hours, if from scratch. Combined with 40 hours per week, it makes it easy to calculate. So a 20-hour course = 200 hours = 5 weeks.

Hmm... I'm not sure aobut this. Similar to @DavidA.Craven, it takes me around two full days to create a lecture. However, I disagree that it is any quicker with handwritten notes - its deciding how to convey concepts that takes time, the actaul physcial act of creating slides takes way less time than deciding exactly what to put on them.

8 hours for one lecture seems a bit extreme to me.

It is not a safe bet that the professor has considered chalk vs. PPT and chosen the former for good pedagogical reasons.  Many people simply do what they have seen before without questioning it.  Learning to question everything about how one delivers a course in order to improve the student experience is a lifelong process for a good professor.

I think prep time varies widely with the kind of class, and what the textbook is like (if there is one).  E.g., for standard calculus classes in the US, I think 2-3 hours of prep for a 1 hour blackboard lecture is reasonable for your first time teaching it.  But for some classes, professors have to assimilate a lot of different material which takes much longer.

@IanSudbery Depends on your comfort level with the tools available, as well...if you're a TikZ wizard then probably doing diagrams takes 10x as long as someone who's just given up and scanned in a pencil image.

I'm going to take a slightly different tack to the others here.
Personally, I'm a big fan of hand written math and hand drawn diagrams in lectures. And while there is some evidence about it being better, that is always going to be "on average". A good presenter can make slide delivery just as engaging as a chalk'n'talk, but it is difficult. An attentive professor will want to hear feedback, and will not always just believe that they know best, or that one type of delivery is equally good for all students.
I'll also add that chalk'n'talk delivery is a skill to be mastered, as is presenting from slides. No one is born good at either, and some people will be better at one form of delivery and others at a different form. It can take a professor some time to discover where their strength and weaknesses lie when they start.
Generally there will be an official mechanism for providing feedback on a course. This will often be a survey at the end of the course. You could ask the professor by informal means, and they may well take your feedback on board.
But...

Don't expect a professor to change the whole way they work on the basis of your feedback alone. They may do so if it is a pattern within the feedback they receive.

Don't expect a professor to change the delivery method mid-course. The die is probably cast at this point for this year.

Some examples: I've had profs that used slides because they needed everything mapped out and outlined ahead of time in order to remain on-topic and on schedule. Some liked ensuring content was consistent between classes. Others had a very dynamic teaching style that incorporated student questions and input throughout, and they abhored slides because you couldn't modify the content as you went. Others used the chalkboard because they could have 5-10x as much content visible at a time. Teaching styles are as varied as learning styles, and using a different style can be just as difficult.

@bta quite. Although as profs we must also remember that different things work for different students.

As others have suggested, slides are, indeed, good for the handouts. And yes, preparing them takes time (my personal experience is, most commonly, about 8-10 hours for an hour and a half lecture, if I am not heavily reusing earlier material).
Perhaps more importantly, while there exists a range of opinions on this, there is a case to be made for black- or whiteboard. I would recommend setting aside some time and watching Patrick Winston tackle the issue. He was so good at communicating, people have asked him to deliver a lecture on public speaking, and he was delivering it for 40 years straight. And while one might consider the comparison he made between slides and a board unfair because slides were not used to their fullest, a significant part of the argument still stands. A blackboard helps the lecturer to quickly illustrate points, including addressing students' questions they would have no way of knowing of beforehand; it also helps to hold the classroom attention and concentrate. And it helps with pacing a lot.
Being an inexperienced educator is overwhelming for many (most?) people, and there are bouts of self-consciousness coming and going. "Am I speaking too fast? Too slow? Are the students following? Are they bored? Damn, I am moving really awkwardly. No, this would not do either. This shirt probably looks bad on me and this is on everyone's mind. I forgot what I was talking about. Damn it all again." Having a chalk and a board in front of you may help with keeping concentration. Some educators prefer notes. Some like slides. Some resort to multiple techniques.
If you are going to raise an issue, point out the problem, not the solution. Professors are human, too. Give them some space. They are very likely aware of some issues with their teaching and are working on them, so think of your input as an attempt at steering, it is not like they do not have their foot on the gas already. And given how much time it takes to prepare good slides and learn to work with them, I would argue that effort would be better spent addressing your more immediate concerns.

+1 for point out the problem, not the solution.

the video by Patrick Winston (RIP) is brilliant and I have all my students  watch it.

@ZeroTheHero I found it bit too late myself; definitely a boon. For me, the second essential source of this caliber is "You and your research" lecture by Hamming. I wish I have seen/read both of those some time late into my BSc. Since it is a poor fit (opinion-based) for a question on SE, I will ask here - do you (or anyone reading this, really) happen to have any other "essential" suggestions? As they say - better late than never :)

Thanks for the Hamming suggestion.  Is this the Hamming of the "Hamming distance"?

@ZeroTheHero Yep, that is the guy. He gives many examples from his time in Bell Labs in his talk (practically starts with humblebragging about working with Shannon for a while :)). Just in case: http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html. Hidden fun bit that just stood out to me: at some point taking the questions, he used "twitted" in the old sense of the word - the talk was given in '86, after all!

You can certainly make a suggestion, but you should not expect it will be accepted. Rather than offering this solution (which has both pros and contras some of which you don't even see from your side), just tell clearly what exactly are the issues with the presentation that bother you. For instance I now remove all stuff from the demonstration table in the room with a low blackboard because otherwise it obscures the bottom of the board to some students but I just didn't think of this issue when I started to teach. I took it for granted that the room setup would be adequate and my duty would be just to present the material using the
tools available.
Such minor things should certainly  be attracted attention to. The solution usually requires just a slight modification of one's blackboard technique, not anything as drastic as switching to the overhead projector (which I, personally, would never do: I improvise a lot during my lectures and spend noticeable time making comments rising from student questions on the go, often using the whole board space for a single comment). So, by all means attract the attention of your professor to the problems you experience (he may just not see them from his side like I didn't see the issue with the low blackboard for quite a long time) but leave it to him to find the best way to resolve them.

I don't think your professor will respond well to your suggestion. If you want evidence, just look at the other answers you have received. They range from defensive to hostile.
You are experiencing a problem (mistakes in formulae) and you are offering a solution (change delivery method from whiteboard to slides).
I suggest if you want to have some influence on your professor's teaching method, you should focus first on the problem rather than the solution. As a lecturer it can be very difficult to know how students are experiencing your teaching method. As a student, it can be very difficult to know the various constraints on lecturers and decisions that lead to a particular teaching style.
Therefore, please approach your lecturer personally privately and mention that you are struggling to understand certain parts because you found the mistakes/corrections on the whiteboard too confusing. If he wants to engage in a discussion about potential solutions, you can mention your ideas.

Yes, you can suggest to switch to slides, but it is unlikely to get the result you wish (it is a relatively crass change; and if the prof thought it would be a good idea to do that, he would already be doing it).
A better approach is usually to change yourself:
When you sit in a lecture with a chalkboard, it is a good opportunity for you to be extra attentive to what the lecturer is saying or writing on the board. The temptation may be there to just make a verbatim copy of whatever is written on the board as quickly as you can, but back in my time as a CS/maths student that was not my preferred way to do it - those sessions were usually half wasted on me, as I was so consumed by the copying process that I didn't get to really think along with the lecture.
Instead, try first and foremost to understand what the prof is trying to communicate (through words and the chalkboard). Assume that the salient points make sense, even if the presentation has errors, and then be gentle about asking questions. I mean, obviously, unless the prof makes it clear that they don't want questions - and always in a polite manner. Also, if you raise your hand, make obvious eye contact etc. and he ignores you, then so be it. Avoid interrupting verbally unless the prof is of the type that always faces the board instead of the room.
If it is just an obvious typo, then you can gloss over it and fix it yourself in your copy (maybe make a side note to check up on this). If it is a glaring error (which the prof should really have noticed), then ask if this is intentional - if it is, then this point may be something you misunderstood, and by asking, you give the prof a chance to clarify.
Finally, if you get the sense that you have no idea what's going on at all, feel free to ask your prof in the break or after the lecture; or figure out if the prof has an open hour for students.
In any case, it is always a good idea to know which textbook or other material works well with the lectures, and have it handy, to look up mysterious passages at home. The point of lectures at Uni is to act like a guideline - if the topic is relatively easy you can get away with no further studies, but thinking and working on these things afterwards should be a  normal part of your process. Be glad if a prof gives great handouts, but by all means do not expect this to be the case.
This holds doubly so if you cannot get a handle on the topic during the lecture at all, and are totally confused. Don't try to somehow fix the lecture; instead try to at least get the big picture, and then work on it afterwards.

This answer does a lot to appeal to the authority of the professor, despite acknowledging grievous errors on the profs part. It is the job of the prof to transmit the knowledge to the student. If it were merely to present it, the prof should be replaced with a book. If the professor fails to explain errors made intentionally or not, that is a grave mistake on the prof, not the student. The prof should also be cognizant of best practices to teach his students. At the same time, it is accurately describing what the student should do to benefit the most from these intermittent poor performances.

@DavidS, I do not intend to appeal to the authority of the prof (I don't think I have anything indicating that the prof is right, or OP is wrong), but to give OP a chance to fix his issue. In the answer, I point out quite a few ways of how the OP can give feedback. If the prof is "enlightened" enough to get it, then he will change his ways. If not, then asking point black to radically switch his teaching method won't help either. And while all of that is happening on the prof's side, OP has a working chance to get the knowledge he needs... At least that's the intention of my answer. ;)

@DavidS The OP does seem to be relying on the professor to do something which could be better replaced with a book--provide formulas. By the time the lecture is happening the OP would ideally already be familiar with the formulas, so the copy on the board is not the one for notes but just a quick reference to put the lecture in context.

Of course you are free to suggest it. Slides have the advantage of being retrievable after the lecture.  But there are many pedagogical advantages of using handwritten notes

On a large board, several slide-equivalent notes remain visible at a time allowing students to see connections between the current talking point and what came before.  This allows students to build connections, and it is also clearer when the lecturer wants to refer back to a previous concept
Visually processing the lecturer writing notes while also talking is a much more active process than watching a lecture drive a powerpoint like a tractor down a field.  Powerpoints at their worst can be mind-numbing, and even when done well often still feel disjointed.
Hand-written lecture allows, perhaps even invites, impromptu discussion/questions.  3-bullet point slides discourage this as many in the audience may not want to ask a question about the first bullet until the entire slide is read

Here is a link to a remembrance article about the physicist John Wheeler.  Page 2 shows a beautiful series of chalkboard images from a lecture he gave in 1971.
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/PubScans/VI-50.pdf

Pacing! It's very easy to blow through a slide full of complicated formulas or diagrams before the students have a chance to write down what they need.  If you're writing it on the board, then you're moving at the same pace they are so they're much less likely to miss something.

For what it's worth... I've had several professors that were pretty neutral about board vs. slides and were quite fine with doing whatever the majority of the class preferred.
I wouldn't have put this as an answer except that most of the other answers assume the professor is... highly opinionated on which to use.
They do both have pros and cons.  Also, as others have mentioned, a new professor may not have prepared slides and they do take significant additional time.
One of my professors actually had a touchscreen laptop with a pen and used slides, but would then draw on them to illustrate more interactive bits and pieces and to answer questions where it was useful.
Other professors indeed did have a preferred style and that's what you were going to get.  I think it is worth bringing up once respectfully, but don't expect it to change and don't push it if they aren't willing to.

Focus on the Problem
The professor is unlikely to take your suggestion to switch to slides. As other people have said, making slides takes time the professor probably doesn't have during term. Slides are often made before the term starts and reused over several terms.
Instead focus on the problem. The problem is not the lack of slides. The problem is you do not understand the notation.
Keep asking about the notation during lessons. Encourage your friends ask about the notation too. Good Professors like when you ask questions. It lets them know whether the students understand or not. In this case it seems you do not understand:

If a student raises a question regarding any notation, then we get to know that our thought process was totally wrong.

This sounds like you think the notation means one thing, but after someone asks, you find out it means something else entirely. You think $x_1^2$ is the square of some number $x_1$. But it is supposed to be the entry in matrix $x$ in row $1$ and column $2$.
If you are confused by the notation, so are other students.
This is bad. You should definitely pester your professor with questions about it. Every question requires the professor to pause the lecture to answer it. The goal is to have so many questions during lectures, and so much time spent answering the questions, that the professor rethinks their notation or starts making better teaching notes. He decides in advance exactly how to write down the formulae for every lecture and write notes for himself.

You can suggest him to use both slides and chalkboard (whiteboard?). They are both useful in their own ways. However, professors sometimes use textbooks and chalkboards instead of using slides.
By using the chalkboard, the professor can show his students his thought process instead of reading the slides, which is a boring task.
As a mathematics student, I love preparing slides in LaTeX, but it will never fully replace chalkboards.

I love preparing slides in LaTeX --- My experience, not very much with slides (haven't taught since 2005), but with detailed LaTeX handouts (hardcopies) for students which is probably somewhat similar, is that this is great for the teacher to learn the subject super-well, but not so great for students -- too much spoon-feeding. Of course, long formulas and derivations might best be handed out to students (printed documents or .pdf or other digital means), so that the students and teacher can focus on the ideas and not so much on "copy-editing and proofing" the formulas and equations.

I think that you will have more success in asking for precise material (a specific formula you need to know, urls, etc.) to be provided digitally.
Making your own notes is a significant learning tool, but that is conceptual, not about writing down detailed data (you may need to access the url - the content at the address, but do not need to "understand" the url itself).


text:
Is it unethical to submit a paper extending the results of a previously submitted, yet not published paper, without giving proper reference?
A while ago, I submitted a first paper and it has been Under Review for a while. After submitting the paper, I was already working on another paper, which is related to the first one and requires giving it proper reference.
Currently, I have finished the second paper and I'm confused between two options:
1- Waiting for the first paper to get published (in case of acceptance) and then give proper reference to it in the second paper and proceed to submit.
2- Proceed to submit the second paper without giving proper reference to the first (since it has not yet been published), and hope that the decision on the first paper will be received so that I can give proper reference in the revised version of the second paper.
Which one of the two options is reasonable and ethical?
NB 1: Note that the results of the second paper do not make those of the first useless, and each paper has its own results.
NB 2: No preprint option is available from the first journal.

What do you mean by "No preprint option is available by the first journal" - does the journal forbid preprints? If they do not forbid preprints, it's important to know that most preprints are not posted as part of the review process even though some journals have started doing this. Instead, most preprints are posted on independent archive sites like arxiv, biorxiv, etc.

@BryanKrause, yes the journal forbids preprints after submission.

@HichamKhalil: So as a corollary you have now learned not to submit any further articles to this specific journal in the future.

When I had a situation like that I have cited my first paper as "bla bla bla, preprint" or "bla bla bla, to appear in...". Then, when I got a revision for the second paper, I have edited the reference of the first paper.

The third option is to reference the earlier paper and mark it in any citation as (submitted, not yet accepted) or similar. Note that the time to publication and the review process make this possible. Few papers (not zero, but not many) are published exactly as first submitted. This will give you the opportunity to update the citation if the first paper gets published.
In essence you will need to make such changes eventually in any case, so you may as well let the reviewers know of the existence and status of the earlier paper. This isn't an especially uncommon situation.
Ethical considerations would occur if the second paper is actually published without necessary citations. But it isn't a big issue for submission, provided you are clear.


text:
What is the difference between a Bachelor of Arts Honours and a regular Bachelor of Arts?
I'm applying to Oxford at the moment for graduate study. Under the section asking what undergraduate degree I'll be receiving, it gives me the choice of "Bachelor of Arts (non-UK)" and "Bachelor of Arts Honours (non-UK)." What is the difference between these two? I might receive departmental honors when I graduate, but I suspect this isn't part of the distinction.

Speaking from my experience in Australia -- but I think it holds for most Commonwealth countries.
A Bachelor of Arts (or Science) is 3 year degree, purely by coursework.
Though potentially some coursework units may have large research components.
You can get into it based on results from high school or some other tertiary entrance exam.
The adding of Honour means the the addition of an extra year, after completion, where you do some coursework, but the focus is on research, you produce somehting which might be called a Honours thesis or similar. Depending on the university, students doing honours may count as post-graduate students, or not (or somewhere between).
It may make sense to think of the Honour year as being a separate qualification -- it is often possible (if unusual) to get into Honours at a different university to where you completed your bachelors.
To get into this Honours pseduo-course, you need to have done well on your units in your bachelors. At the completion your honours results are graded and you get back a result like "1st Class", "2nd Class Division A", "Second Class Division B"; There are more classes, but I've not heard anyone say they have them (presumably because it doesn't sound good to say I have 3rd Class Honours, and/or they don't stick around in academia.).
Honours 1st class is considered roughly equivalent to having done a Masters, as far as getting in to a PhD goes. Thus the Honours pseudocourse can be used as a "shortcut" by high achieving students to get into a PhD a year earlier than they would if they did a Masters -- at the cost of a fair bit of stress usually, because a lot of Honours projects are as hard as Masters projects, and they tend to have a lot of coursework at the same time.
Away from BA and BS, other undergrad degrees may have "built-in" honours.
Bachelors of Engineering tend to have them (Particularly if the B.E. would make you a accredited engineer, without having to go on and do Masters). In these cases Everyone does a research based Bachelors Thesis, but only those who have it graded above a certain cut off, and who meet overall coursework grade cutoffs get awarded a Honours classification, and get Honours on their certificate.

In some cases, it is depends in where you are going to take it. For example, in Bangladesh, Bachelor Degree meaning, you have to take all the courses and its basically coursework. Nothing specialization here. We can call it BA Pass Course too and its duration is 3 years.
On the other hand, Bachelor Honors Degree is involved with semester and course credit system where students has freedom to choose. Of course, at the end of the day, students has to do project or dissertation.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/