please answer all questions, for a like and good rating :) THANKS!!

III. Dr. Garcia is upset by the tough review with seemingly unreasonable demands, and considers quickly submitting the paper to a specialty journal. But her two postdocs realize that their future job prospects would weaken as a result. They argue forcefully that the reviewer was unfair, and say they can quickly complete the experiments to resolve each concern to get the high-visibility publication. Although Dr. Garcia believes that the research findings are valid whether or not they agree with one's hypothesis, she gives her postdocs a free hand because she trusts them, knowing they received many hours of research ethics training. Also, getting this high-visibility publication will strengthen her site visit review next year. 1. Is there an ethical "slippery slope" when a lab tries to obtain specific results for paper acceptance? 2. How can emotional reactions to bad reviews affect subsequent decision making? 3. If only one of several reviewers raises a subtle but potentially important issue, is it acceptable to pull the paper and submit elsewhere, hoping the issue won't be raised in a fresh review? 4. Besides more specialized or less-competitive journals, what are "predatory journals"? 5. How do trainees in your group learn research ethics and best research practices