As we come to the close of 2019 and issue 39 of DSQ, we wanted to take a moment to review the work of and in DSQ since we began our editorial term (Sept. 1, 2018).

Views

The journal currently receives an astonishing number of views. In one year's time, since September 2018, the abstracts of articles in DSQ have been viewed over 1.3 million times and the full articles have received over 1.7 views! (We know, wow, right?) Ranging across all open access pieces that are available through the DSQ website (back to 2000) there have been 1,526 different pieces viewed in the last year. That averages to approximately 1,120 views for every single article. People: we have readers!

Reviews

Speaking of readers and viewers, we'd also like to take this year's closing moment to offer our great THANKS for DSQ reviewers. While publishing new articles and advancing the work of author/s in our field is the "face" that DSQ shows to the public, none of that face would appear without the extraordinary time and intellectual labor of our reviewers. We appreciate you so very much!

It's no secret (at least not to academic journal editors) that reviewers are the threads that hold the fabric of a journal together. In this way, reviewers are also then the threads of the entire field's cloth. Our disciplinary wardrobe would be pretty thin without you!

Yet it's also no secret (at least not to academic journal editors) that it can be very hard to find reviewers and obtain completed and constructive reviews in a timely manner. (sigh) You have to know that everytime we get a completed, constructive, thoughtful and timely review here on the DSQ Editor's "desk," we do a little dance.

And because we like to dance, we thought we would also take a moment to share with you just some of the major benefits of peer reviewing for DSQ. First, when you are asked to do a review, it means we have taken time and thought to choose you! We looked you up, we thought about your fit for the piece we've asked you to engage with, and we truly believed you were a good choice. We like you already! Second, reviewing a submission for DSQ means you are interacting with brand new material just coming out in the field before it is even published. It's the ultimate sneak peek preview! Third, your review work is a foundational piece in the building and advancement of the field of Disability Studies and the journal, Disability Studies Quarterly. Scholarship in our field (and in our journal) doesn't happen/advance without the important time and intellectual labor of our peer reviewers! Finally, we just plain appreciate you! Thanks, reviewers—please keep us dancing.

Redefining

All eight articles and two creative submissions in the Fall 2019 issue of DSQ work in various ways to redefine the construct of disability as deficit.

Courtney Bailey engages in deep theoretical work to ultimately articulate a more complex conception of disability identity in betweenity. Bailey both uses and critiques disability theory, queer theory, and psychoanalysis and offers the figure of the "surviving crip" as a counterpoint to the super crip, but also to the anti-cure figure of the disabled normate. Asalah Alareeki and co-authors analyze interview data from fathers raising autistic and non-autistic children. This research adds to the understanding of stigma experienced by fathers—a group who are studied less and report lower support levels than mothers. Carli Friedman provides a history of discriminatory subminimum wages for disabled people in the United States that relies on a logic of the deficit model. Friedman conducted a quantitative study of existing data about the use of special wage certificates, in combination with data on prejudice, to provide a picture of intertwining oppression.

Stephanie Quinn and her co-authors analyzed 55 university writing center websites for their accessibility and discourses of disability. The authors found many inaccessible features of websites and many that did not mention serving disabled students—an absence that reflects ableist attitudes about student populations. Jane Seale, Ajay Choksi, and Karen Spencer interviewed adults with learning disabilities in the UK about their experiences using technology. Their work adds an underrepresented perspective to conversations in disability studies and technology and it offers insights, including that all of the interviewees focus their reflections on mainstream technologies instead of assistive technologies. This piece enacts inclusive research practices and it models methodology that positions learning disabled people as active participants in a research process. Kay Inckle conducted interviews with physically disabled people who cycle as their main form of transportation. This article challenges a deficit model of physical disability that undergirds the stereotype that physical disability and cycling are antithetical.

Pasquale S. Toscano analyzes William Wordsworth's The Prelude as an example of the epic genre that relies on championing ability, and, thus, denigrating disability in order to fulfill Wordsworth's project. Royce Best reads Henry IV, Part 1 as a test case for how bodies were discursively constructed in the Renaissance. This article focuses on moments of "crip estrangement," when metatheatrical structures force the audience to consider how textual and material elements come together and create a body that signifies.

This issue finishes with creatively curated work. Ruth Li offers fragmented sonnets that riff off and respond to authors in the field, including Stephen Kuusisto, Aimi Hamraie, Meryl Alper, and Christa Teston. Christine Hume write a memoir of dyslexia in index form. Each entry in the memoir (excerpted in this issue) is cataloged by a different shade of red that brings forward a memory and disrupts genre in insightful ways.