We haven't heard much from Dr. Melba Ketchum lately about her Bigfoot DNA paper that's currently in peer-review. According to her latest Facebook posts, she mentioned a few interesting things about species protection and the peer-review process.
Ketchum is rapidly gaining support from folks in the Facebook community about pushing for a law that would make it illegal to shoot or kill a sasquatch. There were some questions from people about her new group and why she's introducing species protection when her paper hasn't been published yet. In her reply, she says that the paper "is close enough" that she felt it was time to get protection:
RE the paper: No, I didn't say anything about timing. We have been through some of the steps already. Between each we work and then there is more waiting. It could be quite soon or a little farther out. Not too awfully long though. It is close enough that we felt it was time to get the protection folks organized and our websites ready. If it was way off, we wouldn't be doing that.
The reply above is in regards to some facts she gave about the peer-review process:
Fact: When a paper is submitted for publication, the reviewers can outright reject it with no coming back, they can reject and give you a chance to re-submit it with more data and/or major revisions, or they can pass it with major revision which means it comes back for some major re-write, minor revision which is typos or verbiage changes, or no revision at which time it proceeds to publication. I recently reviewed a paper from a group that required 3 major revisions and 1 minor revision before it was published. It took months to satisfy the peer reviewers, including me, but now it is published. The same goes for this paper. It is very much alive though and we are just going through the process.