text:
Are there any aspects of PhD work that do not translate well to distance learning?
In another question about distance PhDs (Do any schools offer teaching or research assistantships via distance education?), I received several comments noting that PhDs on-line are of inferior quality to on-campus PhDs. If what is seen of PhD work from PHD Comics is accurate, PhD students seem to spend much time working independently. So, what aspect of a PhD cannot translate to the on-line format? What aspect of the process cannot be effectively conducted via E-mail or any of the other various forms of on-line communication?

Are there any aspects of PhD work that do not translate well to distance learning? It's a little flippant to say "all of it." But it's not far from the truth.

Can you edit to specify whether this is a STEM PhD or a non-STEM PhD you are talking about? I believe that would make a somewhat significant difference for the answers you will get.

For non-STEM fields.

@Village: It's an important distinction; in STEM fields, it is basically impossible to do a distance-learning PhD, because you don't have a laboratory, and so you can't do research, and so you can't publish papers, and so you can't create a thesis, and so you can't get a PhD.

@DumpsterDoofus - sometimes your entire lab can be an average computer.

A general answer is that a lot of PhD training is informal: it involves things that are taught by example, by osmosis, by noticing someone doing something wrong and correcting them (or right, and praising them). This kind of informal training is much more difficult in online interactions. Some examples are given below...
One specific aspect that does not translate well to online learning is the cross-pollination of ideas via proximity.
A big part of training PhD students involves putting a bunch of smart, talented, hardworking people together and letting them learn from, motivate, support, and bounce ideas off one another. A prerequisite for this is proximity; you just can't have the same kind of interactions over email. Some research centers are explicitly designed to encourage this. At the Bell Labs facility in Murray Hill, NJ,

Some of the hallways in the building were designed to be so long that to look down their length was to see the end disappear at a vanishing point. Traveling the hall’s length without encountering a number of acquaintances, problems, diversions and ideas was almost impossible.

(Source: New York Times)
The research center I currently work in was built with a long hallway with this in mind, specifically to foster collaboration between students in different groups!
Another thing that does not translate well is learning scientific communication and mentoring skills. As a PhD student, I have many chances to practice speaking about my work to other graduate students, professors, and undergraduates. I also get to mentor M.S., B.S., and high school students in my lab. These skills are much more difficult to learn over distance.
A third thing that does not work well over email and Skype is learning the etiquette and standards of the field. This is something that isn't explicitly taught (usually) but that students are expected to pick up by osmosis from spending time with other academics and others in their field.

ff524 provides an excellent answer—although I think there are several other important points that are not discussed there.

Experimental work cannot easily be done via long-distance arrangements, unless one happens to be near another research institution with the necessary equipment and support staff to enable the research to take place.
It is also worth noting that online interactions are still not ideal for rapid development of new ideas and discussions. For instance, suppose during a conversation with your advisor, you want to make a quick sketch and show it to her. If you're meeting in person, you can easily develop the figure on paper or on a whiteboard (or similar), and adjust and make various comments. Such an exchange is extremely tedious online—to the point of being almost counterproductive.

To experimental work, I would add library research (which will be more relevant for a different set of fields).  Note that there is a huge difference between academic libraries and non-academic libraries for research purposes.

@MarkMeckes Can you elaborate? I do all my literature searches online...

@Ajasja: If you're in the humanities, or in many other fields, you may be referring to archived documents, original materials, monographs, and other works that are simply not available online in any format. (For one paper I worked on as an undergraduate, I checked out a book from our university library that had not been checked out for 110 years prior to my doing so.)

@Ajasja: I also do all my literature searches online, but things vary a lot from field to field.  aeismail's comment makes the point I had in mind.

This is meant to be in addition to your other answers, so will refer to them  a bit.
First let's take your clarifying comment: "For non-STEM fields" I work in a STEM field, but have spent time discussing related issues with postgrads working across the university.  Many of those in non-STEM fields seem or feel rather isolated anyway compared to those of use in a research group which works closely together.  This is partly due to the organisational structure and funding situation leading to fewer PhD positions in some fields, as I understand it, both of which will vary between universities and countries. This could go either way - it could mean that remote working takes away the last vestiges of academic human contact, or it could mean that your tucked away in a corner of your own home alone, rather than a corner of the office. This relates to ff524's answer as well, though I'm coming at it more from the important aspect of getting through a rather strange life for a few years rather than learning academic or transferrable skills.
How much library research (wrt aeismail's answer) is necessary offline will vary hugely with subject - in my case very little, though access to textbooks at all but especially the early stages must not be neglected.  They may not be realistically available for you to buy.  Access to a more local university library as a visiting reader may be possible, but it would be unwise to rely on  this and you may not be able to borrow the books.
You need a supervisor who's not just willing, but enthusiastic about the idea.  I wouldn't want to be a supervisor's first remote student - let someone else iron out the difficulties first.  You need to be on the same wavelength when it comes to collaboration tools, which means in practice you need to be happy to work with the tools your supervisor wants to use.  This is a minor issue when you work in the same building, but becomes critical when you're widely separated.

I would like to stress a bit more the role of "motivation" as in the answers of ff524 and Chris H., specially in the emotional aspect of it. I would say that doing a PhD has an implicit feeling of isolation: in general, you become an expert at a really narrow field compared to the whole human knowledge (I love how Matt Might explains it in his Illustrated guide to a Ph.D.) and that makes sharing your experiences/thoughts harder (how would you share your troubles and toils with your girlfriend?)
Even if there is no one in your research group doing anything related, the fact of sharing a space (not even talking!) with other people going through the same processes is comforting somehow.
Intuitively, adding a layer of physical isolation on top of the experience would make it less stimulant.


text:
Using up grant money before a deadline
I am aware that grants often only provide the earned money over a certain period of time. And if the money is not used up by the end of that period you lose access to it. Are there ways to effectively spend this money so it does not go completely to waste?

Note: A previous version of this question asked about setting up shell companies, which is why some answers address them. That part of the question was removed.

Despite all the double-speak, this is essentially what HJF is

One important option is to ask the funding agency for a "no-cost extension" to the period of the grant.  This is just asking for more time to do the research without asking for additional funding.  These no-cost extensions are frequently granted by NSF, DOE, and other funding agencies in the US.

I think there are lots of people whose full time job it is to answer this very question.  They are smart people.  They are busy all day long.  They still make mistakes.  I do not think it is a question for which you can get a useful answer on stack overflow.

@StrongBad So, what you’re saying is “set up a not-for-profit org that gives out grants to researchers in your field, then donate the remainder of your funding to it”?

@BrianBorchers I totally agree with that comment and think you should make it into an answer.  It is the best answer to the "circumvent" question.

@nick012000 HJF doesn't give out grants, they manage them. It turns out that part of that management looks an awful lot like money laundering and let you spend money after a grant ends.

Things to do (to the extent allowed by the terms of the grant)

Buy work laptops or other equipment.
Visit someone, send a student to visit someone, or invite a guest.
Depending on how quick the "quickly" is, go to a conference or organize a small workshop, or a summer/winter school.
Hold a networking event with your research group, or together with another group of possible collaborators, possible or actual.
If you have suitable publications, buy golden open access for one of them.

Things not to do
Try to get the money to yourself (except NSF grants in USA and summer salary). Try to keep it for later. Try to use it on something out of scope of the grant, like personal benefits without scientific value.

One might summarize it as "Things to do: accelerate spending on expenses acceptable under the terms of the grant." E.g. computer purchases are not necessarily allowed.

@Anyon Added a general disclaimer. I believe some specific ideas are useful here, given the question.

Isn’t PI summer salary (a common and completely allowed expense on NSF grants) a form of “trying to get the money to yourself”? Conversely, as far as I know NSF grants in my discipline do not generally permit using grant money to buy laptops these days. This answer seems factually wrong.

@DanRomik The question does not specify NSF, and a work laptop of mine has come from grant money.

@DanRomik But I added the NSF expectation.

You are allowed to spend grant money on exactly what the scope of the grant allows and nothing else. If you have leftover money you may ask for extensions in some cases. Departments have personnel whose job it is to help with this exactly. If your department doesn’t then ask a senior colleague or the department head. Misuse of grants is at best an ethical infraction and at worst grounds for immediate termination. I’m not a lawyer but specifically funneling money to a shell company sounds criminal.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What references must be acknowledged in a paper?
This question came up from a discussion on meta.MSE.
My question is:

Do we need to search MSE (or blogs, math forums, ...) to make sure someone hasn't already proven a result when writing a paper?
What if we are already aware of a them (so no need for searching)?
Is not citing such a post in these two cases considered plagiarism?

As I understand, the common practice is to check standard reviewed reputable publication venues (journals, conferences, maybe arXiv) and also with experts in the area to make sure a result is not already published nor a well-known folklore result. No one is going to search all over the internet and check every post that Google returns and citing other resources is very uncommon. I think checking MatheOverflow can be considered similar to the later (checking with experts) (also see this discussion on MO but that doesn't seem to apply to a site like MSE. I am not going to cite a discussion with some random person on the street (not a professional mathematician) who claimed to have a solution or an idea for a solution for a problem (which is not passed peer-review process and I might not want even want to spend time understanding or checking the correctness of the solution).

What are the accepted practice for checking originality of a result?
What is expected from authors regarding this before making a paper submission?

Some clarification since there seems to be a misinterpretation of the question about being academic honesty. The question is not about posts that

you are aware of,
contain a complete rigorousness solution (not just ideas), and
you are confident the solution is correct.

example for tcs.se: refs to cstheory in the literature; it would be great if other academic/research sites had similar examples (eg MO.se etc)

As best I understand it, the clarified question is this: if you are writing a paper and find a posting on the internet that contains ideas on your problem (which may or may not be correct, may be difficult to understand, and in any case do not seem to constitute a complete solution), then should you cite it?  Let's assume you are making no use of the ideas, since if you are then you obviously need to cite the posting (regardless of whether you developed the ideas independently).
In general, you must cite it anyway.  Of course, there are exceptions.  If it's obviously crackpot work, then you are free to dismiss it as worthless.  (Andrew Wiles didn't need to cite thousands of crackpot "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem.)  If it's really only tangentially related to the problem you are working on, then it may not be relevant enough to cite.  However, it absolutely does not matter at all whether the work is peer reviewed or formally published, who wrote it or what their credentials are, whether it is complete, how easy it is to find, or whether it is difficult to understand.
You don't have to endorse it, and citing a paper does not in any way indicate that you feel it is correct.  If you rely on the paper, then that's an endorsement, but mentioning it is not.  For example, you could write "Several authors have studied this problem, including..." and give citations to them.  Then readers can decide for themselves what to make of these contributions.  They will understand from the form of your citation that you feel these works are closely enough related to be worth citing, but not important enough to your paper to discuss in detail.  You can also say something more skeptical if warranted.
One reason you don't see these sorts of citations very often is that this situation doesn't often arise.  (I've never seen a post on mathoverflow or math.stackexchange that I felt I should cite in one of my papers.)  And even when it does arise, the citation may be as a personal communication rather than giving a URL.  (It's much better to give a more detailed citation, so other people can find and learn from or evaluate the posting, but I guess an uninformative citation is better than none at all.)
As for due diligence in searching for prior work, there's no simple rule.  You should search everywhere you feel there might plausibly be something to find, and you should consult with experts on anything you feel unsure of.  It's certainly impossible to search the entire academic literature, let alone the entire internet, so you'll be forced to make compromises compared with an ideal world.  For most purposes, non-academic internet sites will not be relevant enough to be worth searching carefully, but I guess it depends on the situation.

+1 for However, it absolutely does not matter at all whether the work is peer reviewed or formally published, who wrote it or what their credentials are, whether it is complete, how easy it is to find, or whether it is difficult to understand.

In my opinion, "personal communication" belongs in the body of the paper or in the acknowledgments, not in the bibliography (where it is out of place and useless).  It's just mean to make people flip to the end of the paper only to find out that there's no way for them to access the source in question.

This is a question of academic honesty and due diligence.
If you did not arrive at the result yourself, but got it from someone else (either on SE or a homeless man on the street) then it is your responsibility to not claim credit for the result. Of course, in the case of the homeless man you can get away with claiming credit, and in most cases for SE, too. However, it is simply not honest.
If you arrived at the result by yourself, then as a research you should provide due diligence and check if the result is already known. This usually consists of checking the standard sources (i.e. published papers, books) and the communities which you are a part of. "Folklore" in mathematics is vast, and MO, math.SE, and cstheory are all becoming part of it. If you are aware that others arrived at a result before you then you should mention it in your paper (either with a full citation, if applicable, or with an acknowledgement).
However, just like you are not expected to search the back-log of every journal ever published, you don't have to scour the whole internet, either. If you want precedent of this: consider all the results that were published independently in the west and the soviet union during the Cold War. It would have been unreasonable of the scholars on both sides to be fully aware of the work of the others.

+1 If you got the result from someone else it is definitely expected that you mention them in the acknowledgements section.

Thanks Artem. Do you have any evidence to support the claim that math.SE is becoming part of the community of professional mathematicians? That is part of what I am asking.

@Kaveh I don't understand what kind of evidence you would expect. From consulting the top user list Math.SE has a number of practicing mathematicians (albeit less then MO), it is a community devoted to mathematics (although not necessarily at the research level), and it is a community your participate in and (I assume) know to provide good answers, occasionally.  Communities don't have hard boundaries, and it is better to be more inclusive than less for something as important as giving credit where credit is due.

Evidence like how common people cite MSE in their papers. For comparison, there has been mailing lists where famous mathematicians were involved but I don't think I have seen much citations to such posts. Part of the issue is that what can be cited and part of it is what I need to check. You are assuming that it is known that there is complete solution on MSE and you know it is correct. One my questions is are we expected to check MSE? (I personally don't, do you?)

I don't think that it is a clear cut issue about academic honesty issue. Part of the problem I see that even if something is posted somewhere and you are aware of it, it doesn't mean the post is correct. This is even more so when  the post is not a complete rigorous solution but only ideas on how to solve the problem with details that needs to be worked out. It might be the case that one can find the solution using those ideas but it is not a priory clear from such posts that this can be done. Would you consider citing such posts in your paper?

Note that this is part of the rational for having peer-review process, to check for correctness. Even citing arXiv papers (without considering who is the author of the draft) is not common. If some well-known expert working in area X tell you something about X you can be pretty sure that it is correct and one can even cite that as personal communication. I don't think this applies to someone who is not an even a professional mathematician which accounts for many if not most of the posts on MSE.

@Kaveh I think you are getting caught up in the mechanics of procedure and beauracracy to the point that you are losing the point. If you are aware of a result or did not arrive it at by yourself then cite it to be honest it doesn't matter where it came from. If the result is wrong, then don't cite it. I have no interest in having a long comment discussion with you though, since I see you already had an equivalent one on math.SE.

@Artem, I think you are misunderstanding the question and not answering the question I am asking. I suggest that you reread the comments above again a few hours later. ps: please watch the language you are using.

In my experience (straying from my home discipline into interdisciplinary subjects) the far more common case is that I think "this is so obviously a problem, for sure someone must have written already about it". Till now, often it turned out that a) often someone had written about the problem [though b) often without solution], but b) I never even guessed close to useful search terms - I learned keywords present in my own words at a conference, asking around, and a few years later I tend to stumble over 2 or 3 completely different terms that were invented in some other disciplines.

@Kaveh -- I happily cite arXiv all the time.  When I search, I usually use Google, and all sorts of stuff comes up.  Anything that's helpful (and otherwise meets standards for citation), from personal communications to non peer-reviewed drafts, I cite.  I think the reason that random websites aren't cited isn't because they shouldn't be, but because they're rarely helpful, as Anonymous Mathematician points out in a separate answer.

@Lev, thanks. I think Anonymous Mathematician's answers my question.

Certainly this question touches on some topics that are controversial.  However, there should be absolutely nothing controversial at all about citing papers on the ArXiv.

I think due diligence in searching the literature includes:

Talking to at least one expert in the field
Looking through the bibliographies of any major papers closely related to your paper to see if any of the titles look relevant.
Searching on google scholar or something similar for papers which cite any papers closely related to your paper.
Searching on google for some of the key terms in your paper.

The last of these would pick up math.SE, but also often picks up lecture notes, slides, wikis, and other things which would not come up through more traditional academic sources.  If you find something clearly relevant then you should cite it.  Furthermore, you should do these things before getting too far into a project.
That said, no matter how much due diligence you do, you're going to miss stuff sometimes.  5 years after my first paper was published, it was pointed out to me that Osterle gave the same argument in Seminaire Bourbaki (1987/8:165–186).  More recently, one of the 3 main results in this paper follows from a 15 year old result of Popa.  Searching what's known is incredibly hard even if you try your best.  But that's no reason not to try your best.

The result in your first published paper, An alternate view of Mason's theorem, 2000 is essentially an observation I made 20 years prior about Wronskian estimates. In fact it shows up (then and now) on the first page of web searches for "Mason abc", because it is excerpted on the MathWorld page for Mason's theorem. So I was perplexed when I saw it published with no citation. Did you never google it?

In 1998 Google had just been founded, was unknown and certainly didn't include newsgroups.

Of course "google" is generic for "web search". Such web searches circa 2000 (and much earlier) returned links to said MathWorld page on the first page of search results. Anyone who did a web search on "Mason's Thoerem" or "Mason abc", etc. cannot help but have stumbled upon said MathWorld page on Mason's Theorem.

Certainly then I didn't really know what I was supposed to do, and didn't follow these practices.  (Though I do now!)  But I did run the paper by Serge Lang, and read the papers he suggested to me.  I didn't even have internet access when I came up with that argument and showed it to Lang, although by the time I submitted it I did (and so indeed I am responsible for some of the blame).  Anyway, I've been meaning to put the paper up on the ArXiv at some point and add a note mentioning Osterle, if I get around to that (requires finding some old files) I'll certainly also mention your post.

Is that 20 a typo for 2?  20 years prior would be prior to Stothers.

Anyway, I think this situation actually illustrates the point reasonable well.  You weren't aware of Osterle's prior argument (even though it's in the mathworld bibliography for ABC), and Serge Lang and I weren't aware of your post or Osterle's talk.  Nonetheless had any of us been aware of the others we should have cited them even though one is on a newsgroup, one is published lecture notes, and neither was a peer reviewed journal article.

I discovered it in the early eighties (iirc when reading work of Mason). Then I was an MIT student member of the Macsyma group, researching effective methods for algebraic computation. Due to such, I was well aware of Wronskian-related techniques for measuring algebraic dependence. It is rather obvious to anyone with that background (but certainly not to most high-school students!) Anyway, it makes sense to me now that you explain you had no interent access. Nor do I expect Lang would have done a general web search circa 2000 to look for prior work.

In case you don't know the history, MathWorld started out as Eric Weisstein's Treasure trove. He included (without citation) many results from around the Web, including the math-fun mailing list. Said MathWorld entry on Mason's Theorem is excerpted almost verbatim from one of my 1996 math-fun posts. The references are probably all from my post. Later he started adding (some) attributions when it was commercialized.

I didn't know what Wronskians were at the time.  My entrance into the problem was that the only way I knew how to find repeated roots was by computing gcd(f,f'), and thus the only sensible thing was to start with a'+b'=c' and try to simplify things.  At any rate, I apologize, I got more credit for that argument than I deserved, mostly because "high school student" makes for a good story.

It's  a very nice achievement for a high-school student, so whatever credit you got you certainly deserved! I had wondered if perhaps a mentor familiar with these techniques had steered you in the right direction. I'm very pleased to know more about the history on your end. If you should ever write more on it please feel welcome to ping me and I'll be happy to try to dig up more of the history.

In my experience I think the accepted practice is searching the peer-reviewed literature in your field. I'm not saying results published on websites/MSE, etc. aren't valid, they just aren't part of the expected search. Anyways, I don't think peer-reviewed journals would react well to web citations.

Two exceptions may be in didactics (referencing good learning platforms) and in citing a particular implementation of a software. Another point: in my Diplom thesis I did cite e.g. the AI-FAQ (in addition to proper papers, and in a non-computer science field), and my supervisor emphasized this as positive.

In my experience referees have no objections to citations to websites.  I've linked to MO in a paper and put wikipedia in a bibliography in published papers (and of course the arxiv dozens of times in every paper).  Indeed, referees would be committing academic misconduct to ask that a genuinely relevant citation be removed solely because of medium.

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

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


text:
Improve software code when reviewing paper
When reviewing a manuscript describing a new software tool, reviewers are often asked to assess its utility, quality, novelty, ...
I was wondering if, in addition to the classic comments on the manuscript, it was appropriate to make suggestion to improve the software functionality in itself (if the code is provided with the manuscript)?
This would be in the case of a software that is not good enough for publication (basically it does not do enough), and for which small additions will make it better. The comment on the code would therefore not be related to the coding "grammar" but ratter to improve the software tool usability for the final user.

I'd say that of course it's appropriate to offer suggestions if something strikes you about the code. I'd rather ask whether reviewing the code is expected from the reviewer or whether he will only be expected to look at the manuscript.

@StephanKolassa - Why don't you post that as an answer instead of a comment and get points for it?

In my opinion, if the authors emphasise the developed code as one of their research outputs, and make it public, the reviewers not only can, but should consider it as a material for review, and comment on it. There is a delicate balance, though, to strike.
It is important to check that the code does what is promised in a paper (sanity check). More importantly, it is essential to check if a typical reader of the journal can do the same, and can benefit from the code made public. This includes basic documentation, compile instructions (if any), well-written run-files for each of the examples from the paper, and clear guidelines how to adjust them for other problems.
On the other side, remember that not all academic researchers are necessarily as brilliant in code-dev, as the guys who read Stack Overflow. It may be not appropriate to request that the code is developed and maintained to the highest standards of the modern IT community.

I agree that all academics are not computer scientist and that "academic software" should be expected to meet the highest IT standards. However, I also believe it is not a reason to publish poorly designed software.

The definition of "poor design" is subjective. Early Blas/Lapack source codes, for example, may be considered ugly and poorly written from the perspective of OOP community.

@dmitry_savostyanov Let say a "little added value" for the scientific community then :)

I would suggest not to comment on code, unless:

The code is broken in some way, such that it does not perform what it is supposed to do (e.g., a bug in code changes a critical algorithm)
The program itself is unstable due to deep-rooted code smell

Commenting on code in a review seems to me akin to commenting on someone's mastery of a given language in a review. If their usage of the language is so poor as to make the paper unreadable, then you can suggest they use a proofreader or translator. However, in most cases, it doesn't affect the paper, it just makes it harder to understand. With code, it may not get them past a <insert hi-tech company here> interview, but if it works as advertised, it's good enough.

And what if the proposed code is not good enough for publication (it does not do enough), but some minor improvement make it publishable? (I edited my question to make it clearer)

@Wiliam - I would suggest that what you describe is not a code issue, that's functionality (or "utility", to use your term) issue.

I edited the question.

@Wiliam - Now I don't understand the question. Reviewing code is one thing, reviewing the functionality of the software is completely different. It's a back-end vs. front-end review.  Which as you asking about?

Well, I mean proposing modifications in the code to improve the functionality. So, changing the code, but not because it is poorly written, but because it lack functionalities.

+1 - For stat. software the first bullet point can easily happen even if the code provides the correct solution for the original author's data, but may not behave appropriately for new data. Sometimes it is just a functional limitation of the software that isn't made explicit (e.g. this program runs out of memory if you use a sample of 10,000 cases instead of the 200 in the authors example).

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


text:
Author did not make the major changes asked during the review process
I recently had my first paper to review. Since it was the first one, I took great care to be as constructive as possible and to formulate correct and accurate questions / suggestions. At that time, I recommended two major changes for the paper and a couple of minor ones (figures, typos, ...).
I just received the revised version of the paper, with the response to reviewer. One of the major changes I recommended was not fully taken into account by the authors. They did provide a very short answer, but it did not convince me. I read the new version of the paper carefully, to see if the content was changed to fit my suggestion, but it was not.
I am wondering what I should do now? Should I resend the same suggestion, pointing out it was ignored by the authors? Or should I let it go and tell the editor all the other changes were done according to my review? How should I tell the author they did not take my suggestion into account without being rude?

Is your review anonymous?

Sorry for the 'answer' but I don't have enough 'credit' to comment this link. I realize it's a different situation but you may find some good information in the answers and comments.

See also “Asked again to review a paper when the authors don’t wish to modify it”

@NateEldredge yes the review was anonymous, but I did see the other reviewers comments.

@F'x, thanks for the link. I did saw it while writing my post and I found some good informations, but I though the situation was a bit different so I though I might add it anyway :)

It is necessary to keep in mind that your review is likely not the only one, there should at least be a second reviewer. On top of that, thee editor can make suggestions to the author on what must, should or could be changed. I completely agree with the points in the answer of Charles, I also find it strange that you apparently did not receive an explanation to why or how your suggestion was not changed from the authors. It is, however, common that reviewers and authors disagree but what is right and wrong is another question.
What you should do is to reiterate what you think is necessary and if possible support your statement with more arguments. Since it still is up to the editor to make choices and there are also likely other reviewers to consider, you will never have the full picture yourself and you can only provide your view. It is possible the paper will go to publication without your points being met.
In some cases (journals) it might be possible to write a "Letter to the Editor" where one brings up the remaining questions. Such letters will be published along with an open response from the authors. Since you are relatively new to these processes, you could discuss the paper (after it has been published(!), if it is) with colleagues and consider writing such a letter alone or with someone. It is, after all, an open scientific discussion with differences in opinion.

Thanks for the advices. I totally agree that I might never have a full picture of the whole publication decision, although I have seen the other reviewers' comments. The question was more related to what was the right way to respond as an single reviewer, without being influenced by the others..

If I were in your situation, I'd talk to my supervisor before taking action. All of the advice you already got here is quite sound, but it is also a fact of life that people who are new to the review process tend to be more strict than average. I would thus ask someone else in the field whether your suggestion seems reasonable, and if it does, then I would write about it to the editor.
I'm writing this from personal experience - I'm also new to the review process, and I tend to overestimate the importance of the points I'm raising. My own current solution is actually to go easy on the authors once the revised version is in, as a way of balancing this tendency of mine out.


text:
Choosing a title to hold upon completion of a doctoral degree: "Dr." vs. "Ph.D."

Possible Duplicate:
EU Ph.D. in Germany: Calling yourself “Dr.” or “Ph.D.”

I'm asking this question in relation to my doctoral studies in Germany. However, my question may be relevant to regulations in other European countries.
At the university where I pursue my doctorate, I have the choice between two titles. Upon successfully completion of my dissertation and all related examinations I can decide which title I want to hold: "Dr. rer. nat." or "Ph.D.".
In Germany, the traditional title is "Dr.". From what I understand the title "Ph.D." is being introduced at many universities for reasons of comparability with degrees from other countries (especially with the US and the UK). I'm guessing, the reasoning is that holding a "Ph.D." will improve your chances when applying for (academic) openings internationally. However, I have also been told that the German "Dr." has an excellent international reputation and may give you an edge over "Ph.D.".
EDIT: A couple of years ago, legal steps were taken so that a "Ph.D." issued by other European countries is automatically recognized in Germany (as long as the issuing institutions are eligible) and may be "translated" to "Dr." in Germany. There is also a question related to this here. However, a "Ph.D." issued in Germany may not be "translated" to "Dr."! Therefore, I have to decide for either one and cannot use both.
Hence, my question is: What are the advantages and disadvantages of either title with respect to academic careers in Germany and internationally? Is a "Ph.D." seen as less distinguished by German academics? How is the German "Dr." perceived by academics in other countries as compared with a "Ph.D."?

From my reading the question you mention asks whether "Ph.D." titles obtained outside of Germany may be "translated" to "Dr." in Germany. The question is therefore related but refers to a different matter.

My title (after finishing my doctorate in Germany) is Dr.rer.nat. I use, especially internationally, Ph.D. consistently. I have yet to notice any problems from this.

That's an interesting approach and would lead me to think I should go with the traditional "Dr." so I could use it in Germany and "Ph.D." internationally. I am still wondering, however, whether that is appropriate, since I keep reading it is not. I know for a fact, that in Germany it is illegal to use the title "Ph.D." if you received a "Dr." from your university.

I have edited my question to clarify the difference to the prior asked question. I would appreciate a review of this decision.

@energynumbers as pointed out in my previous comment, I believe I have updated the question to highlight the differences to the alleged duplicate. I would appreciate a review of the decision. For what it's worth, I this question has received several up-votes since it was closed, which I believe indicates that others are interested in further answers.

If you're taking responsibility for society, rather than merely teaching or using mastery of your field, use the term "Dr.".

I'll add a bit of a legal perspective into the game. Disclaimer: I hold a Dr. rer. nat. from Germany, though lived and worked in several other countries in the EU.
Firstly, personally I think, that "choosing a title" and seeing it as an important issue, is largely a German/Austrian/(Central European?) specialty. After all, why should your title matter outside academia, where the difference is anyway largely understood around the world?
Secondly, even when you hold some title from country X, you are not automatically eligible to use it across the border, even given there exists an equivalent one in the other country. Rather, there are legal procedures which lead to a formal recognition and proper translation of your title. So for me, being a "Dr." with a title from Germany, to be able to use either "Dr.", or "PhD" in other EU countries, especially those east of Germany, I would have to either undergo a formal procedure called nostrification, or, in selected cases, if the university is granting an equivalent degree in my specialization, they could forgo the nostrification hassle and they could recognize it right away (rather and exception to the rule). Either way, you need to obtain a formal certificate from the state, or at least the university, stating exactly how your title translates to an equivalent title in the other country. Only then you can use the title freely. To top it up, the whole matter is regulated by bi-lateral international treaties between countries exactly stating which title holders are eligible to use which titles in the other country and how. See for example the treaty on grades recognition between Czech Republic and Germany. There even is a full website in Germany on all this (mostly for foreign title holders wanting to use them in Germany).
To sum it up, there is a whole lot to simply using an academic title in a country different from the one you obtained it in. This can be straightforward in countries where the culture doesn't care too much (in my experience e.g., Netherlands), but in countries where the title can be legally a part of your name (not sure whether it still is the case), such as almost whole Austrian-Hungarian empire heritage countries, this can be a big deal.
My point is the following: It's probably irrelevant which title you choose. If you want to be precise, legally speaking, somebody probably already translated your title to another one (which you can't choose) which you should adopt in other countries.
Apart from all that above, I regularly see people approaching me in e-mails, or letters by both "Dr. XYZ", as well, as "XYZ, PhD" - not speaking of those not checking the background and virtually promoting me to levels I do not belong to (yet). Again, the precise title doesn't matter that much after all.

Later edit, on a more anecdotal note:

the precise title doesn't matter that much after all

Well, except when you want to use the title for things like skipping a queue when visiting a doctor and being treated very respectfully by all the nurses (Germany), or when encountering police, getting away with only with a warning and avoiding a fine for speeding, or other minor trespassing (countries eastwards of Germany). I have first-hand knowledge of such incidents, so my advice here would be to 1) go for the fanciest possible title, yet it should be widely recognized by general public, and 2) if your country of residence allows it, include the title on your ID card, passport, social security ID, whatever else, so that you can wave it when necessary :-D.

+1, this answer is very enlightening. The final paragraph is particularly surprising, I never expected this to actually happen.

As someone living in Germany right now, I can attest that there really is very little difference between PhD's from countries like the US, the UK, France, and Australia, and doctoral degrees from inside Germany. In many cases, German universities are looking for people with international experience when hiring, and thus the external experience with having a degree that isn't a "Dr.rer.nat." or a "Dr.-Ing." can be helpful.
However, as mentioned in the above link, it now is acceptable for people with PhD's to call themselves "Dr." inside of Germany. It may not be allowed for someone with a PhD degree from inside Germany to call themselves "Dr."; however, the inherent advantage is relatively small, I believe.
Moreover, if you are outside of Germany, the possession of a doctoral degree is probably more important than the actual title of the degree: in the US, I don't think you will be treated differently holding a "Dr.rer.nat." than the PhD.

Thanks a lot. Your answer was very helpful. And to add to it: I'm know for a fact, that a Ph.D. from inside Germany may not be "translated" into a "Dr." in Germany. This is precisely why I'm trying to decide which title to choose.

If you're planning on staying in Germany, then go with the more recognized title within Germany. If you're planning on spending most of your career outside, go with what's recognized more easily in the rest of the world.


text:
Outsourcing trivial authorless work
I have worked on a problem for close to two years. I feel I have an adequate theoretical solution. However I feel to get some backing on the theory I need some quantitative hard computer data. It is only a few days work of programming. Would it be ethically wrong to recruit an undergrad for a few days volunteer work without pay to get the computer crunching part done and not mention him as a coauthor and only mention as acknowledgement?  This is only for time reasons as I am not familiar with tools required. Everything will be given as cook book to the interested programmer.

Clearly, the answer is yes. You feel you need the result to support your work. Do it right.

Be clear about the credits from the proposal. As long as it is mutually agreed upon beforehand, preferably in writing, and it can't be construed as an abuse of power, it shouldn't be ethically problematic. The undergrad would still be working for free, which is far from ideal tho.

How do you know it's only a few days work? What are the limits on you implementing this yourself?

Why don't you want to credit them? Given that you need this and they provided a significant contribution they deserve to be coauthors.

Why would an undergrad volunteer to do something for you for literally no benefit for themself? And second, are you really sure that they'd turn out good enough work that you could trust it without spending an equally long chunk of time verifying it yourself?

Why not add them as an author? What's your reason for not wanting to do so in the first place?

In the area where I live, the seasoned programmer earns ~ 100$ per hour. In addition to this I have noticed that people do not become seasoned programmers out of a sudden, it takes years of work to become a seasoned programmer.

Given that this website started from a user base of programmers/software engineers, I suspect asking a question that devalues their work to have some bias involved :p

How seasoned? If a good undergrad CS major would do, then it's probably OK, but you need to pay them. I won't do it without being paid.

It might be helpful if you specify your level. If you are a professor, this could be a good opportunity for a student to earn a letter of recommendation and get something for their resume. If you are a grad student, I can't see why they would even agree to do this, much less why it would be ethical to allow them to.

Not to pile on - but "a few days work" in practice means it will take somewhere from a few days to a few weeks of continual work. When its someone else's time, more than 5 minutes would be pushing the meaning of "trivial". I'd say unless you could get someone to provide the code on stack exchange for unicorn points, its probably more work than could possibly worth an acknowledgement - which has the approximately same street value as 1 up vote here :)

It is typical in academia to abuse undergrads for that. professors seems to get by with this - albeit most often with minimum wage. But that does not make it more ethical ...

If by “cook book” you mean design doc, you are plainly undervaluing the developer work involved.

Well now we know that you don't do your own software.

@Freeman: If you wish your own conclusion to be heard, write your own answer (summarizing what arguments lead to it). It clearly doesn’t belong in the question and is irritating to the reader. I know that in some cases, post-mortem information (e.g., “the plagiarising paper was retracted”) can be interesting to some readers, but this is not the case here and even then, it should be clearly identifiable as such.

One aspect that has not been brought up is this:  who would own the resulting software?  Would the student be able to sell licenses to this software to other researchers, possibly after making some modifications?  Would that constitute theft of your initial cookbook instructions?  Do you own the software?  Does the institution that funded your research own the software?  This might be trivial. It might not be.

Can you may tell us your own experience in coding? I cannot get rid of the impression that you have no clue at all, is that true? Therefore, you may make a completely wrong estimation of the amount of work involved in coding and, most importantly, to what can go wrong!
My personal experience with this: either you know enough about coding and just implement it yourself or you don't know enough to even make the slightest estimate to what it takes. Did you get a second opinion (probably from a colleague that is better at coding) on how hard the implementation truly is?

@Azor Ahai : I might do something like this without necessarily having pay. Assuming everyone will only do things for pay is too reductive. And keep in mind the OP is suggesting to ask , which means that the person can refuse the no-pay terms if sie so pleases. However, I agree with the others here that credit should definitely be given.

@The_Sympathizer Did I mention pay?

@Freeman. – Please do not engage in edit wars.

Hi I am coding this myself.

@YemonChoi What a shame trying to throw mud on me. Look it is not as if MO is solving RH for me. It just basically solves some useful problems where I lack knowledge (plus only 33% of questions were ever answered and some in hindsight are just reference point queries). Hope that helps and if there is a recommendation that you 'can' make positively let me know.

@YemonChoi There is a reason users make communities they join hidden. By abusing and revealing other communities you belittle the value of trust in this site.

A lot of people here are probably from Stack Overflow, and therefore are professional programmers who feel they have a sort of stake in this (including myself). It would be interesting if this question could have been written in a more hypothetical / notional way. For instance, if the work to be done wasn't programming but some other skilled labor the OP did not have direct experience in, and then to ask the same question amounting to what value someone's contribution in that area would be worth. I don't know if that would change the mix of answers (or not).

@DaveInCaz I doubt it would change the answers much if at all. Comparable work  like skilled lab work or help with statistical analysis probably would get essentially the same answers which with some variation seem to all say this merits more than an acknowledgement. Something like grammatical editing would probably not be comparable and not merit more than acknowledgement, but also would not take "a few days".

You seem to think you won't get published without the computer work, yet you also seem to not translate this into respecting how important the computer work is to your paper.  If it's that critical then you have a co-author.  Remember the co-author has to stand over the validity of their work and if you didn't do that work you cannot be sure it's valid.  If you want all the credit do all the work.  Even the best undergrad programmers know a lot less about programming than they think they do, so that's a very risky route for critical coding.

Rather than proposing this to an individual, which should be interpreted as coercive since there is a power imbalance, you could publish a call for help, describing what you need and what you offer. Be clear that it is only an ack on offer, not authorship, and no money is involved. Ask for people to apply. You can choose among those who offer to help. Some probably will, but if not, you should consider something more substantial.
If there is a learning component, you could describe that in your "call" as well. It might make it more interesting, even though there is no academic credit involved.

Let me respond, indirectly, to some of the comments here by people who seem to think I'm suggesting an unethical course of action. Actually, all I tried to do was assure that coercion wasn't part of the OP's actions by suggesting an open call for assistance with little reward.
If I ask someone to mow my lawn and there is a power imbalance between us it is coercive and thus unethical. If I put out a general call for someone who would be willing to mow my lawn for no return but my thanks, it is no longer unethical. I hope that is recognized.
In fact, professors are on the "losing" end of exactly this sort of arrangement. Society has asked us to dedicate our lives, and often fund our own education, to educate the next generation. The tangible rewards are actually few. I earned, over a 45 year career about half of what I'd have earned working in industry (I actually have anecdotal evidence). Society asked me to do this, offering thanks and (often) respect, but not actually a "fair" compensation. Society depends, in fact, on lots of people being willing to take this deal, finding that the rewards are other than monetary or power or ...
Most of you reading this, and most of you disagreeing with me, have taken this deal or are in the process of preparing yourselves to accept it. While I'd like a "better" deal, I've never been unhappy with the deal as long as I had the respect of my peers and as long as I felt I was contributing.
Not every relationship needs to be strictly transactional. If I ask for assistance, offering only thanks but little else, I don't expect any particular person to accept, but I depend on the fact that those that do will find, somehow, their own rewards in helping.
Another analogy is precisely what happens on this site. People ask for help. There is very little offered in return for that help and yet other people - you and me - are willing to help and get our reward however we can. Sometimes the respect of our peers is enough.
I recognize that the current question may be a bit different, but I don't see that I'm suggesting finding a "sucker" if a student accepts such a request and finds in his or her own way a reason, educational or otherwise, for doing so. Those who are grant funded should, of course, build in funds for such things, but not everyone is. Many faculty at undergraduate institutions are required to do research but not compensated for it. You are paid for teaching and for being supportive of undergraduates and helping them grow and advance.
I also recognize that some here believe that any help on a paper should result in co-authorship. I think that is misplaced. I agree that those who contribute to the intellectual content of a paper should be recognized, probably as authors, but if someone works at my direction, then it is a different situation. Should someone translating my poor language skills into a polished paper be a co-author? Should my first Calculus instructor be a co-author in every Analysis paper I write?
Note that I didn't, and don't, know all of the details here and so can't actually comment whether as student writing code to validate a theory has contributed to the intellectual content (My field is CS, actually). It may be or not, depending on the level of direction, which I don't have evidence for. Creativity should be recognized, certainly. Don't guess that I think otherwise. There are situations in which authorship would be appropriate and others for which an acknowledgment is sufficient.

But if an undergrad believes this would be a valuable experience in itself and decides to apply, does it make it ethical to not give them authorship status nonetheless? Just because the terms are clear beforehand does not mean the deal is fair.

It's still unethical if you find a sucker willing to submit.

I agree with @einpoklum. Just because you make it clear up front that you are going to have someone do work and you won't make them co-author does not solve the ethical problem that arised in the first place. OP accepted this answer probably because it is more comfortable, but a good answer should definitely address this (see iayork's answer).

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Additionally, some flags have been raised on some overly aggressive comments. Please keep it civil, folks.

The fact that to a seasoned programmer the work is easy doesn't have anything to do with it. As you describe it, this is work that's required for the publication. Without it, you don't have a paper. With it, you do. Therefore the programmer contributed significantly (critically) to the paper, and therefore the programmer should be an author.
The fact that it's quick and easy for a programmer simply means that programmers have spent significant time and effort learning skills that you don't have. If you consider the work trivial, then go out and learn the skills yourself, and do the work yourself. If that's too much work, then put an appropriate value on that work and offer authorship.
An example in my field is histopathology. I can take tissue slides to an expert who will look at them for five minutes and provide an interpretation. That expert becomes a co-author, not because of their five minutes of work but because of the decades of experience behind it.
Collaborators shouldn't need to run a bloody gauntlet and engage in hand-to-hand combat to become co-authors. If they provide a skill that contributes significantly to the paper, that should be enough.

Extended discussions in the comments have been moved to chat. Please check whether your concern hasn’t already been mentioned before writing a new comment. @iayork: Please try to implement important clarifications into your answer.

@Freeman I also do not see why the OP does not want to acknowledge the programmer as a co-author. Any contribution is a contribution. A contributor as a co-author. What are you going to loose? Since you made this question, you already has feeling that there is something wrong in not acknowledging the programmer. Most theorists unfortunately, because they do not have practical experience, they think it is trivial. Implementation is not trivial at all. It also require effort and most of the time reveal flaws in the theoretical part or articulate the theory which seems dummy without it.

"this is work that's required for the publication" wouldn't you say the same for a translator?

@mehrdad just about every possible silly counterexample was already put forward in the discussion, which was removed as too long. All were irrelevant. Please don't start again.

Seasoned's programmer's rate would probably be $100-$1000 per day. This, assuming that your estimation is correct (dangerous assumption) means you are asking for a volunteer to provide you with $500-$5000 of free labor(assuming that the work takes 5 days).
I also find it strange that you mention time for a seasoned's programmer, but want to hire an undergrad - the difference in the time required to finish the job might differ much. And no work is "Trivial" if it requires "few days" of expert's work.
Undergrad's work might also be of lower quality because of his lack of experience - what if the program is faulty and returns wrong results? How would you know that?
Ultimately it comes down to how you arrange it - you might find someone willing to do it for free. I suggest considering potential gains (is undergrad contributing $2000 in his time not enough to become a co-author?) and threats ( what if the work takes much longer? what if the program has bugs? what if the undergrad can't do it? ).

It's a pretty small and elite group of programmers who make $1000 per day; conversely, $100 per day is not much above minimum wage in some places in the US. So realistically, I think that range could be a bit narrower, like $200-400 per day for an average competent professional software developer in the US.

@DavidZ I didn't want to try to account for all the different variables - experience, technology, location... I provided approximated rates so that I would have some numbres to show. Entry level software engineers at the big five earn 100k+ USD per year, that's more than 400 USD a day, and they are not experienced. Bottom line is, they are not pennies.

@DavidZ $100/hour is actually a pretty low consulting fee for a seasoned programmer out in The World, especially in places like California. And 10 hours of work per day for a short-term project isn't outrageous either.

(2 comments up) Well, the "big five" tech companies and others in tech hubs are not representative of what programmers make in general. If the OP is in one of these areas and has to pay a rate competitive with what those companies are paying, then yes, you have to go beyond $400/hour, but even then, $1000/hour is very high. And in a lot of other places the salaries are a lot lower. (1 comment up) @JeffE I suppose you're right in that consulting fees can be 2-3x higher than salary, I didn't consider that.

In comparing employee salaries and contractor rates, the contractor rate has to come out considerably higher for equal compensation.  $100K/year with paid time off, continuous employment, and assorted benefits is far better than $50/hour straight cash.  $400/day is quite low.  $100/day is ludicrous.

Would it be ethically wrong to recruit an undergrad for a few days volunteer work without pay

"Ethically wrong"?  Some answers say it isn't (though I disagree)
But that is the wrong question to ask

However, I feel [that] to get some backing on the theory, I need... computer data.

You've worked on a problem for two years.
You're going to trust "a couple days" free work from a random undergrad to prove it?

If you don't know enough to code it yourself, how do you know the code is right?
In other words (and this isn't meant as harsh or flippant) if you can't tell me how you will be able to tell the difference between these two outcomes:

A person taking your assignment and coding something which produces the answer you expect
A person writing a program which will prove or disprove your theory

...then you don't need the code, do you?
If it turns out you think #2 is correct, but later someone proves that #1 is what really happened... that's bad.

This is only for time reasons as I am not familiar with tools required. Everything will be given as cook book to the interested programmer.

This information was added after I wrote my answer. I answered with the assumption that OP was getting an undergrad to do the code because s/he lacked the knowledge.

While I agree with the latter part of your answer, the first sentence is so wrong that I have to -1 you. It's terribly wrong. If you edit that out I would definitely upvote the fine point regarding verifying the code.

@einpoklum Do you mean where I say, "Maybe not" to it being ethically wrong? If so, please note I put that there because others have argued that under the right circumstances (agreement in advance, etc.) it would not be ethically wrong (at their institution / their field, presumably).  I consider it wrong, and wouldn't advise it on a moral basis - but there are other answers here that say how to make it right ethically, and they seem to have valid points (regardless of my feelings). My main point is code correctness - sidestepping ethics because I doubt OP will care my opinion on the ethics.

“I doubt OP will care my opinion on the ethics.” OP specifically asked whether it would be ethically wrong. This suggests that they care about your (and everybody else’s) opinion about ethics. It’s fine if you don’t want to comment about it, but you did actually state an opinion (“maybe not”) that suggests that you don’t feel strongly that it’s unethical, so your response to einpoklum where you now say that you “consider it wrong” makes you sound inconsistent. My suggestion is to edit your answer and either remove the ethics comment or give a clear statement of your position on this.

@J.ChrisCompton: So why not edit your comment into the answer, instead of the "maybe not"? Replace it with "in my opinion, it is, but \n this is not the right question etc."

@DanRomik Yes, the OP said he wanted my opinion - but I think he is at least worried that it might be wrong and came here to get people to tell him how to make it okay. Notice the answer he accepted basically told him how to do what he wanted in the first place. Communicating my thoughts sometimes goes wrong, for example "Maybe not" was intended to say to everyone "That's not ethical to me, but you might be able to do enough lawyering prep work so no ethics board could actually find against you on this issue."  Anyway, changed it. Hope it sounds consistent now (as I haven't changed my mind).

@einpoklum "Why not edit your comment into the answer?" because I still read it the way I meant it. But when DanRomnik joined you in taking it the same way you did, I decided to change it. See what I wrote previous comment for what I meant to convey when I said, "Maybe not."

Thanks, your position is clearer now, which I think makes for a better answer. Upvoted.

I don't quite understand this answer, as it seems to suggest that there is no way for a code-illiterate person to make any use of computer-generated output, since they cannot verify what the coder did.

@NuclearWang OP added the part "This is only for time reasons" after my answer. Certainly a code-illiterate person can use computer generated output in general. Can a non-coder use results from Microsoft Excel or SAS - absolutely! (And we don't know how those are coded.) But the question seems to be whether a non-coder can use output from a custom built program, which is built by someone who isn't a specialist (the undergrad) to verify a unique hypothesis... maybe not.  (Again, the additional info that OP is able code it is new info)

I don't suppose it's unethical so long as you are clear in your expectations and proposed reward (which is effectively nothing), and the other party fully understands what they are getting into. This could easily become exploitative, however, as you are hoping to get someone to work for you while offering really nothing of value in return. If you are a professor or are some other type of authority figure over the student, I'd tread very carefully here, as you could be exerting undue influence over this person.
I notice that you plan to approach an undergraduate student about this, which could very easily be seen as preying on someone who doesn't know any better. If you have a really interesting problem that's so cool to work on that someone should be happy to do it for a simple "thank you", why not approach a true "seasoned programmer" instead of an undergraduate student? If true professionals find your proposal unpalatable, I'd say it would be unethical to try to hoodwink a less experienced person into the deal.

Nicely said. If you offer to pay, it is fine. If you offer co-authorship it is fine. I would have taken either as an undergraduate programmer. If you have department approval and offer course-credit it is fine. But if you use a position of at least apparent and possibly actual authority to pressure a person that is at least apparently subordinate into it with then it is unethical and could be illegal depending on the details.

"I'm looking for a sucker undergrad who's willing to do work I really need done, and for which I'm paid for, while receiving literally no reward." <- If OP made this clear, and someone showed up, I don't see how it becomes legitimate.

Would it be ethically wrong to recruit an undergrad for a few days volunteer work without pay to get the computer crunching part done and not mention him as a coauthor and only mention as acknowledgement?

Yes. Perhaps it wouldn’t be the most terrible ethical offense, but if forced to choose one of the two words “no” or “yes” to answer the question “would it be ethically wrong?”, I’d go with “yes”.
The reason why it’s wrong is that you are going against established conventions of what authorship means. You think that by offering a student some other sort of reward for doing part of the work involved in publishing a paper, whether it be an acknowledgement, a letter of recommendation, or the opportunity to add another experience to their CV, then it is okay to not list them as a coauthor. But this is wrong, for two reasons: first, there is a clear power differential at play here that makes it likely the student may be tempted to go along with your scheme even without really finding the arrangement very fair or agreeable. In other words, it’s exploitation and an abuse of authority (of a sort we hear about all too often on this site unfortunately).
Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it is not just the student you are offending against. The scientific community has an expectation to be given honest and accurate information about who contributed meaningfully to the creation of the paper. And, by current conventions at least, “several days of work by a seasoned programmer” is more than enough to be counted as a coauthor. I find the idea of you reaching a private agreement with the student to deprive the community of that information by having the student give up authorship rights quite problematic, even overlooking the separate issue of exploitation. Imagine for example if rich people started paying famous academics to collaborate on research with them, giving them a high salary with the agreement that the famous and super-talented person will give up their coauthorship rights. Is this just a private transaction between two consenting adults that doesn’t hurt anyone else? No, of course it’s much less innocent and is harmful, since it deprives the community of information it needs to function effectively, and goes against agreed-upon norms of what’s acceptable.
Now, of course, in your situation you are actually the person who will have done almost all the research, and that’s fine. The student being a coauthor  doesn’t mean that they will get half the credit for something you worked on for two years. It would be completely legitimate for you to make it clear to people what each coauthor contributed in any way necessary (by writing it in the paper, or in your CV or publication list, research statement etc). You absolutely deserve to get the correct portion of credit, and there is an honest way to make that happen. But as for coauthorship, the student programmer should get it, since they will have contributed time, creative thinking and a technical skill that’s quite nontrivial (at least, nontrivial enough that you yourself don’t possess it) to the project, and those are the accepted criteria for being a coauthor.

I would +1 you for mentioning an offense against the community; but I think you're being to lenient with your downplaying of the inethicality (sp?) of OP's suggestion.

@einpoklum thanks, glad you partially agree. I did say it was unethical, it’s just less unethical (and less obviously unethical) than some other things I can think of. Actually I noticed that my answer was the only one that brings up the community aspect, so it’s nice to see that someone took notice. :-)

You've inspired me to expand my answer accordingly, so now there are two.

It would be exploitative and quite unethical, yes.

It is only a few days work of programming.

You'll know that after the programming is done. Preliminary estimates of programming time are typically much lower than actual effort expended, not to mention the significant amount of not-actual-programming overhead we tend not to account for.

Would it be ethically wrong to recruit an undergrad for a few days volunteer work without pay

So, you want someone to do work you need for your research - for which you yourself are paid, and for which your university is funded - without the person doing the work getting paid?
You bet this is ethically wrong. Ethically, morally, and in some countries also legally.
It should also be noted you would not  just mistreating that student. You would be:

Legitimizing younger, inexperienced researchers not getting acknowledged for their work.
Legitimizing students not getting acknowledged for their material contribution to the work of people higher-up the ladder.
Legitimizing exploitative employment practices in academia, where it is unfortunately quite common to squeeze unpaid work out of people who depend on the system in various ways.

So your suggested act would be offensive both to the academic community at large. If I were in your university you could expect harsh action from the nontenured academic staff union upon us finding out you've done this.

to get some backing on the theory I need some quantitative hard computer data... and not mention him as a coauthor and only mention as acknowledgement?

Since this data is necessary objectively, it will also be necessary to present it, to some extent, in the paper. And this necessary part of the paper will be generated by that undergrad programmer. ... Sounds like a co-author to me; and you cannot drop co-authors.
Also, while it is sometimes legitimate to ask people about whether they want authorship or not - when an undergraduate is involved, there's a power and knowledge imbalance which makes it unethical to ask them to give up co-authorship.
What you could do - if you like - is describe the extent of his/her involvement; but even this may be impolite (depending on the conventions in your field of research).

This is only for time reasons as I am not familiar with tools required.

So the co-author will even utilize some expertise which you do not have? An even stronger co-authorship.
If not for time reasons, I would have written most papers in most scientific fields all on my own. I just need enough time to become familiar with all of that stuff.

Everything will be given as cook book to the interested programmer.

That would be nice and a good idea regardless of who writes the code. However, an unethical, immoral, and exploitative act is not excused by a related socially-beneficial and commendable act.
Oh, and, just so you know - implementing something to just work for a paper and implementing it for publication so that other people can use it to is a significant difference in the amount of work necessary.

I also very much agree with @DanRomik's observation that you would be committing an offense against the scientific community, not just the undergrad; and with @JChrisCompton's observation that you're ignoring the issue of verification/trustworthiness of the code.

You make quite a few, perhaps unwarranted, assumptions. In many undergraduate institutions in the US, the professor is paid to teach, but still expected to do research. There are no grants involved and no pay for the research. It is just an expectation. Any pay would come out of the professor's pocket and he/she may not be especially well paid to begin with. In such an institution, all of the students are undergraduates, and in many cases they have fairly close relationship with their professors. Not everything there needs to be transactional as you seem to prefer.

Likewise, two years of work at such an institution is nothing like two years at a top research institution. It is done in odd moments between classes and during summer "breaks". There are no university funds to support it, maybe not even for publication fees.

To clarify, when I said OP’s actions would be an offense against the community I meant something specific: that OP would be depriving the community of information about who contributed meaningfully to the paper. That’s different from what you are referring to in your answer about legitimizing exploitation and so on. (By the way, can’t you accuse any wrongdoer of offending everyone else by legitimizing wrongdoing of that particular sort? This hardly seems to be worth mentioning. The main thing that’s wrong with doing something wrong is that it is wrong, not that it “legitimizes wrongdoing”.)

"the professor is paid to teach, but still expected to do research. " <- that means the professor is paid to do both, without getting proper recognition for his/her research work. This warped arrangement is due to the collective weakness of faculty which should organize across universities to struggle for better working conditions overall. "No grants for research" <- Research funding should also be a struggle. What you're describing is every stratum passing the buck, or perhaps, carrying forward the exploitation, to the next stratum. Totally unacceptable.

Authorship
(Ethical) academic authorship is independent of other forms of rewards, so it doesn’t really matter here whether you pay somebody or not. The crucial aspect here is whether your programmer made a creative contribution. Now, what is creative is somewhat fuzzy and difficult to assess, but a good litmus test can be obtained from considering what a non-creative contribution would look like:

It always produces the same result with respect to your research question. (Irrelevant or unavoidable differences like the programming language, statistical fluctuations, etc. are excluded.)
It follows a clear established protocol.
Understanding your research question yields no advantage to the contributor, e.g., in form of assessing the plausibility of results (also see J. Chris Compton’s answer).

If this applies to the contribution you seek, then it is likely not creative. However, as others noted, this is very likely not the case here.
Payment
Your programmer is very likely not helping you for purely altruistic reasons, so there must be something else you have to offer.
I can only see the following options:

Scientific credit (authorship). This requires a scientific contribution, which you excluded to be the case.
Formal payment. You also excluded this.
A prospect of recommendation letter, good grades, thesis projects would imply an abuse of power and in some cases bribery. This could very well be compared to just receiving money from the student.
Getting insight into the scientific process would be in conflict with your claim that this is a trivial task.

Sidenote
I often found that tackling a research question from another point of view yielded valuable new insights or perspectives in unexpected ways. Given that you spent two years on your question, investing two days in programming will almost certainly be a worthwhile experience on average.

This is the best answer. Either this is truly "crunching" (akin to buying a microscope or feeding the rats) -- in which case it should be paid or otherwise remunerated -- or it is a creative contribution, in which case it deserves authorship. Whether the student consents to be exploited is irrelevant. I could maybe see a case if OP were willing to let the successful student continue to collaborate with him and earn authorship on future papers (as well as a LoR), but no evidence this is the case here.

Is the output of the computer program going to be included in the paper?  If so, that output has an author, and that author deserves credit.  But who is the author?  Is it the computer?  Is it the program?  Or is it the programmer?  I think it's the programmer.
If the output has no intellectual merit, why does it add value to the paper?  Would including the program input instead of the output serve the reader equally?
Contrary to popular belief, programming is intellectual activity. It deserves respect.

I don't think is unethical if you provide something of value of exchange to the prospective student.   Will he gain an understanding of some theory that he/she's interested in as part of the engagement?   Be upfront at what you're offering to your prospective collaborator.
If you just want a free coder then yes this is unethical.  This is pure and simple exploitation, and abuse of power from your side.  Would you like to be on the other side of this exchange?
ps. Check the regulations of your institution!

I am a software engineer. There's a story that has always resonated with me whenever a friend asks for "free" software development

The story goes that Picasso was sitting in a Paris café when an
  admirer approached and asked if he would do a quick sketch on a paper
  napkin. Picasso politely agreed, swiftly executed the work, and handed
  back the napkin — but not before asking for a rather significant
  amount of money. The admirer was shocked: “How can you ask for so
  much? It took you a minute to draw this!” “No”, Picasso replied, “It
  took me 40 years”

Even though I am no Picasso in the software world, the overall message is the same and applies to any professional. A good story to consider when asking for "free" help
Blog Link to story

In many institutions, it is common for undergraduates to help with research, either paid or for credits. It is not necessarily unethical to post your project and ask for help, but you have to consider what the student is getting from this experience.
Authorship might reasonably be off the table, but at the same time the undergraduate might come with some interesting insights/get more involved. You never know.
Regardless of the authorship or financial aspect, there is some form of payment that, for some, is invaluable: the experience and the advice. For most undergraduates, getting involved in research (especially if they are actively interested in pursuing such a career) can be tough.
However, you should consider that undergrad less as the one doing the dirty work and more as your mentee. You are, after all, more experienced than him, and you could provide some useful insights into academia or into your field. This comes of course at the cost of you spending some (possibly rather fun) time with the undergraduate, sharing your knowledge.
To put is shortly, if you find somebody willing to be just a coding monkey, it's not necessarily unethical, but adopting the coding monkey as a (possibly very short term) tutee is a win-win situation.

Would it be ethically wrong to recruit an undergrad for a few days
  volunteer work without pay to get the computer crunching part done and
  not mention him as a coauthor and only mention as acknowledgement?

It's not ethically wrong if the engineering contribution is too tiny, compared to the whole contribution of the paper.
In fact, it's very common that professors/researchers hire several undergrads/interns to work on engineering a tool, and only list them in the acknowledgment. (I can provide many examples).
However, it is ethically wrong if the engineering contribution is substantial, and you don't list them as co-author. Whether there contribution is enough for co-authorship depends on your judgement, but your judgement can be wrong.
If you read the book "7 habits of highly effective people", one of the habit is always thinking about win-win solution. You can't just expect somebody to work for you for free. It sounds unrealistic.

"You can just expect somebody to work for you for free." I think you meant to write "can't" or "cannot".


text:
How to list an unfinished PhD on a resume
I started studying my PhD with a federal scholarship that was supposed to sustain all my expenses and allow me to study without the need to work. Long story short, between family and mortgage payments money was scarce. My relatives helped with some of the expenses, but after 2.5 years, there were just too many pressure from financial problems, and I was not having a good progress in my investigation, that my advisor and I decided to suspend the PhD and that I should focus on getting a job.
To that extent, is it a good idea to emphasize that I started a PhD but was not able to finish it, or will it create a bad image about me not ending what I start? Should I wait until they ask what I did for those 3 years to tell them I didn't finish it? The PhD is in my CV, as started but not finished. Should I keep it that way or should I erase it?
To note for the possible answers is that I already have a Master degree in the same specialty as the PhD, and this is happening in México.

Generally speaking, something unfinished is better than a gap. What are you going to say you spend these 2.5 years doing if asked in an interview you got omitting the information? Also, it is better to have something unfinished that helped you get relevant experience than nothing (officially nothing).

Also see: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38201/how-should-i-state-a-phd-dropout-in-my-cv/38203#38203 Never lie, and never sell it in a negative tone.

Some US institutions would consider awarding a master's degree or at least a research certificate in lieu of a PhD for someone in your position. Is this an option?

I suggest you make sure this is posted with a username that will not be findable by potential employers.  (If you haven't already done so.)  Because you don't want to project "wasn't able to finish" or "not making good progress with my research."

This situation happens to people and it is often challenging to figure out what the next steps are. So, be happy that you are making the step to pick up the pieces and move forward!
You should definitely include the PhD program on your resume, especially if it relates to fields that you are applying to. Where you most likely want to address this issue is in your cover letter. If you are transitioning out of academia altogether, you can give professional explanations for leaving a PhD program where you wouldn't have to explain the personal challenges you have faced. For instance...
"I realized during my doctoral studies that I prefer more hands-on work that would be offered in industry positions."
"I enjoy my field very much, but am looking for positions that offer more stability and consistency in my schedule and pay than in academia."
Those are just examples. If you are seeking a position within academia that does not require the PhD, you can use similar explanations ("I have learned that I'm better suited for administrative positions" or "After starting my doctoral studies, I realized that my passion lies more with teaching than research.") I'm not sure if this would be different in Mexico or not. I hope this helps!

The reasons I gave sounded like spin, because they were generic. The point was to give a perspective on one way to handle the situation, with the intent that their cover letter would be more personalized. I understand that the real and personal reasons are quite sympathetic. The point of my suggestion was that maybe the person doesn't want to talk to a potential employer about their prior financial stressors. Also, just because you and I may find this situation sympathetic doesn't mean that all employers would.

@dan1111 - Yes, of course OP needs to look for a positive spin!  Why sell yourself short?

I think that representing your reasons for leaving should focus on opportunities and current challenges. Employers want to know why you left your prior opportunity AND why you want to seek new opportunities through them.

@dan1111 - I'm all for giving a reason.  As a potential employer I would not react well to "wasn't able to finish" or "was not making good progress with my research."  Do we really have any disagreement here?  I'm not sure we do.  Perhaps we just feel differently about the word or the concept of "spin"?

Leaving a job because it does not pay enough is perfectly acceptable. And that is what grad school is: a job. On your resume, you should treat it as a job, with a title and responsibilities and accomplishments, just like any other job.
As much as possible, present it as a staff researcher position (but don't go to the level of lying), rather than you being a student. If they ask about why you left, emphasize the financial considerations, not because you are greedy, but you had obligations that had to be met. Don't emphasize any difficulties you were having with your research.


text:
Conflicts with colleagues as a postdoc - reason enough to start looking for the next job?
I have recently started as a postdoc at a well-regarded foreign university. I like the place and I have no particular problems with my professor (even though his style isn't exactly to my taste, but I could live with that and take the difference as a learning opportunity).
However, I have a major problem with my fellow postdocs and other junior colleagues. I get the feeling they're just too full of themselves -- but whatever the reason, the situation is that I simply want nothing to do with them. Given that our research group is the only group at the department whose research I could plausibly participate in at the moment, this leaves me with practically no opportunities for fruitful daily scientific interaction.
I'd like to return to my home country after a couple of years of postdoc positions abroad, so I'm feeling some pressure to get the most of my time. I have often heard that the most valuable thing you get out of postdoc positions is the contacts you make. If this is the case, I'm probably wasting my time at my current job. On the other hand, my current institution has much more resources, scientific activities and opportunities to meet distinguished visiting researchers than pretty much any place else I might get to.
So the question is: what should I prioritize when deciding whether to continue at my current job? Is it worth tolerating intolerable colleagues for the opportunity of working at a prestigious and well-endowed university?
I'm sure a recommendation from my current professor would weigh a lot when looking for the next job, but I'm also quite sure I haven't been able to prove myself to him yet.

(Copied from an answer posted below by the original poster:)
I was deliberately vague about the nature of my issues with my colleagues, but I do understand it's relevant.
Of course, it might be just culture shock, as someone suggested. On the other hand, I do feel there's a very unpleasant group dynamic in my research group.
We're conducting research on the beetles of Borneo. I used to be in a group that studies the beetles of New Guinea, and we often have guests who study the beetles of Java or even some other island. But the general atmosphere among my colleagues is that only Borneoan beetles are worth studying. My earlier work is considered definitely useless and irrelevant - and this was also told me explicitly, right after I had presented my work.
The professor seems to share the attitude in some respects, but he's old and experienced enough to understand that even though he might himself care only about the beetles of Borneo, others might still care more about beetles elsewhere. My junior colleagues just think that if it isn't Borneo, it's bullshit.
If I isolate myself, I will have problems learning about Borneo. If I try to learn about Borneo from my colleagues, I'll have to endure constant putdowns of my own interests and earlier work.
(To anyone who actually studies beetles: I'm sorry for using you as an example.)

It might help if you say more about why you find them intolerable and want nothing to do with them (beyond your perception that they are full of themselves.)

What Trevor said - without knowing more, we can't say if it's you or it's them, and we don't know whether this problem would follow you everywhere you go.

..."is that I simply want nothing to do with them". Although this is totally your right, we can only choose our friends and not our colleagues. Is not a way to actually collaborate with those "buffoons" on a strictly professional level, without actually having any connection on a personal level?

I have often heard that the most valuable thing you get out of postdoc positions is the contacts you make.

I always thought the most valuable thing you get out of postdoc positions is the research experience and the research papers. The contacts/connections would be the by-products after you conduct quality research.
You said "I'm also quite sure I haven't been able to prove myself to him yet.". If you leave now, you wasted all the efforts you spent to apply for your current postdoc job and the time you spent on the job so far only because you don't like your colleagues?
I understand you are at a well-regarded foreign university. My guess is that many of your colleagues came from different cultures/locations than yours. That's probably why you feel that they are intolerable.
My advice: concentrate on your research (which is your job). Work with your professor and those colleagues if needed. Do your best.
Edit after the OP put in some more details:
Your example sounds like you are in the wrong group in the sense of research direction. I don't quite understand why you went there in the first place. But, you are there now. I would try to stay there for a while if I were you. I would collaborate with my colleagues. I would learn beetles of Borneo from them. I would show them why beetles of New Guinea are also worth studying. I'll do my best. If it still doesn't work out after a while, then I'll quit and find another postdoc job, the right one this time.

+1 just for mentioning the cultural differences. Specially since it seems a generalised perk.

Even if you have a good postdoc, you should keep an eye out for one that is even better.  However, if you stay in your current position less than a year you may be viewed as unreliable by future employers.  (US perspective)

-1: This is very generic (not specific to the question about interpersonal issues at all), questionable advice without almost no supporting explanation.


text:
Where can I look for announcements of tenure-track positions?
I am looking around to land on a tenure track position in the area of systems and control (engineering) and I would be grateful if anyone can suggest a good strategy to identify possible opportunities. I keep seeing people around me getting interviews for positions I have never heard of, so I guess my search strategy needs some improvements.
My main target is the US, but I am open to positions in UK or Canada as well.

Field? Country?

@astronat You are perfectly right, I edited my question including the information you mentioned. Thanks.

@Thomas I tried on Indeed but I did not find anything interesting. Also, I signed up for a monthly mailing list in my field, but I believe many positons are not advertised there.
On a related note, another thing I did not say is that I am actually trying to move out from an assistant professor position in France. I am not very happy here.

The people writing your recommendation letters should know where to look for job ads. Have you asked them? If none of them are familiar with the system you are applying to, then I think that presents a bigger problem that you should solve first.

@Thomas I see. I will ask them, but I would like to start my research independently.

Most fields have a few central job posting sites. For me, https://cra.org/ads/ was a one-stop shop. Hopefully you can find a good job site just by googling. E.g. searching for "assistant professor computer science jobs" turns up several links worth exploring.

@frank You should indeed "start your research independently", but that does not mean that you should not rely on strategic advice from your mentors. It's a common mistake to think that "being independent" means that you should now figure everything out yourself. It does not.

Most positions in Canada will require you to be a professional engineer (licensed by the provincial board of P. eng.), which is a pain to get as a foreigner (and takes years, depending on the province).

There might be special communities around the internet for ur field. try Google groups for instance. Also, search highered jobs https://www.higheredjobs.com/ , I also recommend u to look at researchgate jobs at: https://www.researchgate.net/jobs , Hope this help!

A quick Google Search of

X faculty position ads

turns up a rather lengthy list of position ads, but they also include the websites which those ads are posted on. You can then "fan out" from there. (It defaults to jobs within 200 miles of your location, so you'll want to change that setting to "any" to see all the jobs it can find.)
Additionally, the professional society for your discipline or another similar organization probably has some sort of "clearinghouse" site where such announcements are collected. For example, in my discipline (Chemical Engineering), an organization called CACHE offers a central posting site for such positions. In other countries, there may be regulations requiring the positions be advertised in specific locations as well.
And, of course, it's possible to ask your friends, mentors, and colleagues where to look for positions! Independence doesn't mean you have to go it completely alone!