College and Research Libraries The Vertical File: Retain or Discard? Evelyn Payson Should academic libraries maintain vertical files in an era of increased competition for scarce library resources? This study discusses the costs and benefits of vertical files and analyzes the results of a survey sent to 171 academic libraries at four-year, nondoctoral campuses in six midwestern states in the summer of 1993. Vertical file practices at the 139 responding libraries varied greatly. The libraries with no vertical files and those with large and active files were significantly more satisfied with their current policies than other libraries with infrequently main- tained files. o have, or not to have a verti- cal file: that is the question. Is a public access vertical file ==== collection worth having? If a library chooses to have one, how much care and attention does it merit, and what sort of care and attention? How does one balance the costs and benefits of the file? In a technological and computerized era, does it still make sense to have a vertical file? This article examines both the benefits and the burdens of possessing and main- taining a vertical file. While the article does not offer definitive recommenda- tions about having a vertical file, it does conclude that if a library is to be satisfied with its vertical file, it must allocate suf- ficient staff time and material resources to maintain it well. This paper surveys what has been written about vertical files over the past fifteen to twenty years and presents the results of a survey conduct- ed by the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater on current vertical file prac- tices in libraries and their perceived suc- cess. Literature Survey and Background For the past several decades, academic librarians have devoted little time to ask- ing or answering the fundamental ques- tions about having a vertical file. 1 Most authors are firmly committed to main- taining the traditional vertical file and have extolled its virtues without seriously questioning its existence. Vertical files tend to become little-used backwaters of librarianship, tucked away in quiet corners, peaceably aging and decaying. Still true today is Josephine Schneider's statement of 1951 that "often librarians give this part of the collection very little thought, sometimes because of lack of time, but more often because they are not interested in such material and they fail to see the values of it." 2 Com- ments in response to the survey such as "The vertical file is the lowest priority on my job description as Public Services Li- brarian," and "No one on my staff has cared enough in many years to work with the V.F. collections" indicate that vertical files are definitely not a top priority for many librarians. Evelyn Payson is a reference librarian at the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater, Whitewater, BOO West Main Street, Whitewater, WI 53190-1790; e-mail: paysone@uwwvax.uww.edu. 423 424 College & Research Libraries Importance of Vertical File Materials Despite the lack of interest in vertical files, some librarians have recognized the im- portance of pamphlets and related mate- rials. Mimi Gronlund summarized the benefits of pamphlets thus: Pamphlets offer unique and impor- tant advantages. They can provide information on current subjects be- fore that information is available in books ... Pamphlets offer a concise presentation of information that may be more appropriate for the li- brary patron than a book.3 Shirley Miller thought the advantages were so great that "For your investment of time and money, you will get a return great enough to turn a Wall Street specu- lator green with envy." 4 With the volume of pamphlets and other grey material ever growing and the amount of available staff time ever shrink- ing, the question of whether to maintain a vertical file becomes increasingly impor- tant. As Barbara Allen points out: Ours is truly an information age ... Much of this information is pub- lished in looseleaf, pamphlet, book- let or newsletter format-items li- braries traditionally do not add to their permanent collections. Yet such information sources are not just ephemeral in nature; they con- tain data not found elsewhere in the library, which make vital contribu- tions to academic research and must therefore be made available to pa- trons.5 Several authors have commented on the value of nonconventional material for current information. Susan Lovenburg and Frederick Stoss state: "Few sources are as good when one wishes to under- stand all the sides of a controversial is- sue."6 Marc Levin declares, "Often litera- ture issued by policy research organiza- September 1995 tions is the only source of independent information that objectively evaluates important policy questions." 7 Peter Alli- son remarks that vertical file material "digests and summarizes knowledge for busy decision makers." 8 Several of the respondents to the cur- rent survey echoed these views. One wrote, "The file is exceedingly useful for contemporary topics and topics of inter- est to this college, e.g., women's issues, justice issues. It is particularly useful for keeping information about these topics which are not often or well reported in standard information sources." Lack of Academic Esteem Despite the value of the information it contains, even a well-maintained and ac- cessible vertical file may not be heavily used. Many faculty tend to regard refer- eed journal articles or university press books as more acceptable sources for stu- dent papers than policy papers or tech- nical reports. In 1981 Tom Hodgson and Andrew Garoogian described the ''basic indifference" to pamphlets which were "seen as lacking in 'scholarly virtue'." 9 Librarians themselves tend to shun the vertical file and see vertical file work as professionally counterproductive. Julie Still stated that "Librarians are reluctant to take on responsibility for the VF be- cause it is not perceived as a stepping- stone to success," possibly because "the vertical file is perceived as a low-tech tool in a high-tech world." 10•11 Respondents to the survey reported here supported her view with comments like "Students at- tracted to bells and whistles of technol- ogy view vertical files as outdated," or "Our students do not tend to like to use the vertical file because it does not have the appeal that computers do." Processing Problems Another reason libraries do not make more use of grey literature is that major problems arise in handling it. These prob- lems have existed for decades, but they grow more acute as librarians wrestle with dividing ever more scarce resources among a constantly increasing range of programs. Finding sources for material can be difficult. Standard publications such as the Vertical File Index list only a portion of the useful pamphlets. Scanning journals and newspapers to find references to po- tentially valuable material is time-con- suming and laborious. Providing bal- anced points of view in vertical files is difficult or impossible. Often vertical file material is created by groups that take strong positions and consequently pro- duce biased publications. For instance, during the 1970s and 1980s the South African government produced much of the readily available material on apart- heid. 12 Acquiring and processing vertical file material is difficult. Ordering units at many libraries are reluctant to process small orders and require hard-to-obtain detailed bibliographic citations. Few cata- logers want to handle vertical file mate- rials. Cataloging problems arise fre- quently, and cataloging copy is often not available. Most items are as brief as jour- nal articles, making it difficult to justify the time needed for cataloging. Conse- quently, catalogers often view vertical file items as low priority and relegate them to backlog shelves for years or even de- cades. Access to Vertical File Material If vertical file material is not cataloged, alternate means of making it accessible must be employed. The most common means of providing access to a vertical The Vertical File 425 file collection is, and has been, a file of subject cards. However, maintaining one is time-consuming and patrons often do not or cannot use it to find the informa- tion they seek. As one of the surveyed li- brarians wrote, "There are treasures to be found, but access is not good." Some libraries have tried other ways of making material accessible. Joy Tho- mas at California State University Library, Long Beach, reported success with pre- paring printed lists of pamphlet file sub- ject headings.13 The Alexandria campus of Northern Virginia Community College reported success with integrating pam- phlets into the collection by placing them in suitably labelled Princeton files in the proper location on the shelves.14 Adding pamphlet subject headings to the online catalog has proven successful at a number of libraries, including the University of Utah Health Sciences Cen- ter Library.15 Several of the surveyed li- braries have begun this practice. One of them wrote of the "great improvement in access achieved by creating one online OPAC record for each folder (subject)." When the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater created NOTIS online cata- log records for pamphlet folder headings, vertical file use more than tripled, as table 1 indicates. The 139 respondents to the current study indicated that they made pamphlet material accessible in a variety of ways. Most of the thirty-seven libraries without vertical files cataloged a few important pamphlets and discarded the rest. Of the 102 with vertical files, most provided sub- ject heading access, either through a sepa- rate file or by incorporating them into a TABLE I UW-Whitewater Vertical File Circulation Statistics (Broad Subject Headings Entered Online, 1992-93) 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 2,191 1,899 1,768 3,508 5,989 426 College & Research Libraries main catalog. A few libraries provided no external finding aids. Two of the surveyed libraries provided users with listings of the actual items in the vertical files, one in paper format, one online. Both felt these efforts were useful. Keeping Vertical Files Current After vertical files have been created, they lose value rapidly unless they are weeded. Thomas declares, "Unless a vig- orous, consistent weeding policy is pur- sued, it [the vertical file] can quickly be- come clogged with out-of-date material. Pamphlets stating that someday mankind may land on the moon or discussing sexually transmit- ted diseases without mentioning AIDS do not belong in the vertical file .... This discourages students w~o seek in- formation on a current development and assume that a preponderance of old pam- phlets signifies the absence of new data." 16 Pamphlets stating that someday mankind may land on the moon or dis- cussing sexually transmitted diseases without mentioning AIDS do not belong in the vertical file unless they are being kept for their historical value. Literature Summary Judging from the literature, the answer to the question of whether a vertical file is truly worthwhile is no clearer than it September 1995 was in 1981 when Hodgson and Garoog- ian stated that "an ambivalent feeling still persists among academic librarians to- wards the value of pamphlet collections in college libraries." 17 Although many li- brarians regard the material as valuable, it is difficult to handle and make acces- sible, and doubts about its merit persist. Survey In the summer of 1993, the author pre- pared a questionnaire and sent it to the 171 academic libraries with 60,000 or more volumes at four-year, nondoctoral campuses in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The goal of the survey was to learn how li- braries were actually handling vertical files and how satisfied they were with their current practices. Of the 171 librar- ies surveyed, 139 replied, for a response rate of 81 percent. Thirty-two of the 139 were at public institutions and 107 at pri- vate. Two libraries had two distinct ver- tical files and submitted responses for both; each response was treated as a sepa- rate vertical file. Two of the 139 respond- ing libraries indicated that they were in the process of changing procedures and could not complete the questionnaire. Approximately three-fourths (102 of 139 or 73.4 %) of the responding libraries had a vertical file, while 37 (26.6 %) did not. Libraries without Vertical Files Libraries which do not have .vertical files are confronted with the problem of what TABLE2 Libraries without Vertical Files: Satisfaction with Handling of Pamphlets and Similar Materials 1. Very Satisfied 2. Moderately Satisfied 3. Neutral 4. Not Very Satisfied 5. Not at All Satisfied Number (N=33) Percent 13 9 6 2 3 39.4 27.3 18.2 6.1 9.1 to do with pamphlets and ephemera. Most material is dis- carded or not collected, al- The Vertical File 427 TABLE3 Vertical File Size though over half of the librar- ies responding (21 of 37, or 57%) indicated that they did catalog some pamphlets or ephemera. Survey comments included, "If it is worth having, it' s worth cataloging," "Cata- log or discard," and "Catalog (or don't collect if not substan- tial) ." Size Range Libraries (N=91) % of Libraries 1-500 501-1 ,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-5 ,000 5,001-10,000 13 14.3 12 13.2 13 14.3 21 23.1 20 22.0 >10,000 12 13 .2 Most of the libraries without vertical files are satisfied with their present prac- tices, as table 2 indicates. On a 1 to 5 scale of satisfaction with their handling of ma- terials that might be included in a verti- cal file, the average score was 2.18. Three-fourths of the libraries (27 of 36 responding) had once had a vertical file but decided to discontinue it, while the others had never started one. Twenty-five (69 %) of the libraries were not interested in starting or reinstituting a vertical file. When given a list of reasons for not hav- ing vertical files, 32 of the 37 responding libraries (86 %) said a vertical file was too time-consuming; 25 (68 %) believed it wouldn't be used enough; 19 (51 %) thought the information was readily available elsewhere; and 16 (43 %) didn't think they had the resources to start and maintain one. Comments from several libraries re- flected their opinion . that not having a vertical file was a wise decision. One re- spondent wrote that the staff "found low use relative to the effort needed to col- lect, categorize and maintain." Another described the vertical file as "not cost ef- fective," and a third provided three rea- sons for not having a vertical file: "(1) too labor intensive, (2) can be rip[ped] off too easily, [and] (3) outdated idea." Other libraries would welcome a ver- tical file if it proved feasible. "I am not happy with the status quo, but am at a loss on how to proceed without unduly tying up staff and resources," wrote one library director. Another librarian com- mented that "A vertical file would be a nice thing if we could really keep it up- there's just not enough time. And now staff time is deluged with new technolo- gies-CD-ROMs, online searching, etc. Too much new to learn-no time for old technologies that may have been useful." Libraries with Vertical Files Libraries with vertical files reported widely diverse situations and policies. Some libraries had small, single-purpose files such as corporate annual report col- lections. Other libraries had large and actively maintained files, while still oth- ers kept previously established vertical files without maintaining them. Libraries with vertical files indicated less satisfaction with their current prac- tices than those without. However, the li- braries with the largest vertical file col- lections or the highest number of addi- tions were approximately as satisfied as those without vertical files. Size and Activity of Vertical Files The sizes of the vertical files at the report- ing libraries varied enormously. The smallest contained only a few hundred items, the largest 54,000. The distribution shown in table 3 appears to be roughly logarithmic. While most libraries gave vertical file size in terms of items, several used file folders or drawers as their units. For pur- poses of the survey, one file folder was 428 College & Research Libraries September 1995 TABLE4 types of material, as table Annual Vertical File Additions 5 shows. The most com- monly used formal selec- tion tools were the Verti- cal File Index, the govern- ment's Consumer Informa- tion Catalog, and the Educator's Guide to Free Materials. No selection tools were used at 29.4 Number Added Libraries (N=86) % of Libraries 0-50 18 51-100 20 101-250 18 251-500 13 >500 17 assumed to contain ten items; one file cabinet drawer 250. Like the number of items in the verti- cal file, the number of items added per year varied widely. Again, as shown in table 4, the distribution appears to be ap- proximately logarithmic. Withdrawal data were contradictory and difficult to interpret. Most libraries (83 of 98 or 84.7%) reported that they kept material for fewer than ten years, but the actual withdrawal figures were far too small to support their claims. Only 37 percent of the responding libraries withdraw more than 100 items a year. The discrepancy may result from the differ- ence between ideal and actual practices or from the tendency to weed on a multiyear cycle. Type of Material in Vertical Files Most vertical files contained a variety of 20.9 23.3 20.9 15.1 19.8 percent of the libraries with vertical files (30 of 102); 21.6 percent (22 of 1 02) used more than one selection tool. Acquiring vertical file materials that were not free was difficult for many li- braries. Fewer than half (46 of 102) of the libraries with vertical files (45.1 %) re- ported purchasing any vertical file mate- rial, and only six (5.9%) purchased more than ten percent of the items they added. One surveyed librarian commented, "If something is not free, we don't bother with it." Over 85 percent of libraries (87 of 102 with vertical files) did not report having any formal vertical file budget. A few libraries commented that they could pay at least some of the postage costs in- volved in acquiring free items but could not purchase vertical file material. Simi- lar findings appear in the literature. Allen noted that "many managers of informa- tion files have to operate on zero bud- TABLES Types of Material Collected in Vertical Files Type of Material Number Collecting (N=99) Percent Collecting Pamphlets Maps Travel!fourist Material U.S. Govt. Documents Newspaper Clippings Periodical Articles Other Govt. Documents Technical Reports Pictures/Photographs Other: Corp. Annual Repts. Other: Misc. 94 76 76 64 60 57 50 37 36 19 30 94.9 76.8 76.8 64.6 60.6 57.6 50.5 37.4 36.4 19.2 30.3 gets." 18 Juleigh Clark found that 31 of 33 responding libraries in South Carolina did not have vertical file budgets, al- though eight were able to purchase ma- terial from the book or supply budget.19 Personnel Professionals do most of the vertical file work at the surveyed libraries, with a majority of responding libraries (25 of 41) spending 25 or fewer hours per year on selecting materials. Processing material demanded considerably more time than selecting it, but over two-thirds of the li- braries (30 out of 42) used 50 or fewer hours each year. Withdrawing materials consumed less time than either selecting or adding. Almost half (20 out of 41) of the libraries spent ten or fewer hours a year. At almost all the libraries the total time spent on the vertical file was less than three hours a week. The time expended seems to have diminished since 1980 when Hodgson and Garoogian found most City University of New York (CUNY) colleges using three to ten hours per week. 20 Vertical File Use Librarians tend to think that their patrons did not make extensive use of vertical file The Vertical File 429 material. When asked how heavily their vertical files were used (on a 1 to 5 scale: 1 = very, 5 = not at all) the average re- sponse was 3.15. Thirty-two of the 74 libraries which provided annual circulation figures re- ported circulating 50 or fewer items, 15 circulated 51-100, 11 circulated 101-200, nine circulated 201-1,000, and seven cir- culated from 1,001 to 8,000. Libraries with large or actively main- tained collections were significantly more likely to think that their collections were heavily used than those with small or static collections. The Pearson correlation coefficient between size and perceived use was .4678, between number added and perceived use .4268, and between number withdrawn and perceived use .3822. All three are significant at a less than .01 confidence level. Table 6 illus- trates the relationship between annual acquisitions and perceived use. When asked "How useful do you think patrons find vertical file material?" librar- ians felt it was somewhat useful. The av- erage estimate of usefulness was 2.73 on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very) to 5 (not at all). These figures can be com- pared with those reported from a survey of vertical file users at the University of Evansville, where 13 of the 31 respon- TABLE6 Yearly Additions and Estimated Use of Vertical File (N=86) Yearly Additions How heavily do you feel VF is used? Mean Use (No. of responses) 2 3 4 5 Very Moderately Somewhat Not Very Not At All Avg. Use 0-50 3 6 7 3 3.53 51-100 3 6 11 3.40 101-250 2 9 7 3.15 251-500 3 7 3 3.00 >500 4 5 4 2 2.27 (In addition to the cases shown above, 3 libraries did not reply to the question on estimated use, and 13 others did not give annual acquisitions figures. Two of the 13 felt the vertical file was moderately heavily used, 4 felt it was somewhat used, and 7 felt it was not very heavily used.) 430 College & Research Libraries September 1995 TABLE7 Collection Size and Estimated User Satisfaction Vertical File Size How useful do you feel patrons find VF? Mean Usefulness 2 3 4 5 Very Moderately Somewhat Not Very Not At All Avg. Use 1-500 5 6 3.54 501-1,000 2 1 9 2.58 1,001-2,000 1 2 8 3 2.92 2,001-5 ,000 2 3 11 3 2.78 5,001-10,000 2 8 to . 2.47 10,001 up 3 5 4 2.08 (Nine libraries which responded to the usefulness question did not report collection size. One of the nine felt the vertical file was very useful, two felt it was moderately useful, four felt it was somewhat useful, and two felt it was not very useful.) dents felt that the vertical file had been very helpful, 16 that it had been some- what helpful, and two that it had not been helpfuF1 Again, librarians with larger or more active vertical files tended to respond more positively than those with small or inactive files. Table 7 presents the statis- tics for collection size; a similar pattern emerges for the number of items added annually. The Pearson correlation coeffi- cients were significant at the less than .01 level for correlation between collection size and perceived value (.4019) and be- tween yearly additions and perceived value (.4001). The correlation between withdrawals and perceived value (.2783) was significant at the less than .05level. The questionnaire asked the respon- dents to choose the three most valuable TABLES types of vertical file materials. The first choice was pamphlets for beginning-level papers, followed in order by travel and tourist information, historical material and clippings, pamphlets used for more advanced papers, technical reports, and corporate annual reports. Satisfaction with Vertical Files Two questions assessed how satisfied li- brarians were with their vertical files. The first asked whether the respondents be- lieved that the vertical file was useful enough to justify its cost in time and money, and the second asked whether the responding librarians were satisfied with their institutions' current vertical file poli- cies. A majority of the librarians with verti- cal files believed that the usefulness of the vertical file definitely or probably justified its cost Does the Usefulness of the VF Justify Its Cost? in time and money, as table 8 indicates. The average rating was 2.50 on a 1 to 5 scale (1 =definitely, 5 = not at all). Libraries (N=101) Definitely (1) 19 Probably (2) 35 Neutral (3) 30 Probably Not (4) 12 Not at All (5) 5 Percent 18.8 34.6 29.7 11.9 4.9 Once again, the larger the vertical file collection, the more satisfied librar- ians appeared. Table 9 shows the correlation which was statistically significant at the <.01 level (.2771). As might be The Vertical File 431 TABLE9 Belief that Vertical File Is Justified (!=Definitely, 5=Not at All) expected, the belief that having a vertical file was justified was strongly cor- related with the degree to which the librarians felt it was used ( <.01 level, .4490), and with how use- ful librarians thought us- ers found it ( <.01 level, VF Collection Size Libraries (N=92) Mean Response 1-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001 and up .4921). Librarians with large or active vertical files were also most likely to be satisfied with the current vertical file policies at their institutions, and again the correla- tion was statistically significant at the <.01 level. The average level of satisfaction with the policies was 2.55 on a five-point scale. At libraries adding over 500 items a year, it was 1.94; at libraries adding fewer than 50 items, it was 3.06. The cor- relation of satisfaction with both collec- tion size (.3087) and number of items added annually (.3534) was statistically significant at the <.01 level. And for the Future? A substantial number of librarians (37.1%, 36 of 97 responding) reported that they were considering changes in their verti- cal file policies and procedures in the fu- ture. Sixteen of these were contemplating eliminating their vertical files, and eight were considering expanding them. When asked to select areas of concern, a majority of the responding librarians TABLElO Vertical File Concerns (N=99) 13 3.08 12 2.58 14 2.57 20 2.30 21 2.33 12 2.00 indicated concern about the extent of ver- tical file use (68.7%) and the amount of personnel time that vertical file opera- tions demand (52.5%). Almost half (43.4%) were concerned about making vertical file information easily locatable and accessible. Table 10 indicates the ar- eas of concern. Conclusions The merits of the adage that "A thing worth doing is worth doing well" are demonstrated by the survey results. Those libraries that decide not to have a vertical file and those libraries that de- cide to have large and active vertical files are both significantly more satisfied with their situations than the libraries that have small or infrequently maintained vertical files. Conversely, when libraries do not spend the time necessary to build, main- tain, and provide access to their vertical files, they are unlikely to be satisfied with it. As one of the surveyed librarians re- marked, "It consumes a lot of time and needs much support and en- couragement to be success- ful." The survey results seem to indicate that libraries which Area of Concern Libraries (N=99) % of Libraries are unwilling or unable to commit the necessary re- sources might be more satis- fied if they discontinued their vertical files. Personnel Time Materials Cost Accessibility Extent of Use Other 52 52.5 21 21.2 43 43.4 68 68.7 16 16.2 Providing online catalog access to information about 432 College & Research Libraries the contents of the vertical file holds promise for increasing vertical file use. Libraries with large or actively maintained collections were significantly more likely to think that their collections were heavily used than those with small or static collections. While there were not enough cases where vertical file headings were added to an online catalog to draw statistically signifi- cant conclusions, it appears to work well for the libraries using it. · No clear answer exists to the question of whether it is worth having a vertical September 1995 file in the first place, provided that the vertical file is adequately maintained. On tne one hand, those hbranes wh1cn choose not to have a vertical file forego access to sigmtlcant amounts ot valuable material, much of which is not readily available except in pamphlet form. On the other hand, they save significant amounts of personnel time which can be used to provide other library services. Whether the access to additional information jus- tifies the cost in time and money of hav- ing a well-maintained vertical file is a question for each library to weigh, con- sidering its own situation and recogniz- ing that halfway measures are unlikely to prove satisfactory. Notes 1. Much of what has been written since the nineteenth century is reprinted in Michael D. G. Spencer, ed., Readings on the Vertical File (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1993). 2. Tom Hodgson and Andrew Garoogian, "A Special Collection in College Libraries: The Vertical File," Reference Services Review 9 (July 1981): 77. 3. Mimi Gronlund, "Pamphlets-A Question of Format," Unabashed Librarian 42 (1982): 9. 4. Shirley Miller, "Pamphlets and Clippings," in Readings on the Vertical File, 3. Originally published in Shirley Miller, The Vertical File and Its Satellites, 2d ed. (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1979). 5. Barbara F. H. Allen, "The Information File in Academic Libraries: An Unexploited Re- source," Collection Management 16, no. 3 (1992) : 53-54. 6. Susan L. Lovenburg and Frederick W. Stoss, "The Fugitive Literature of Acid Rain: Making Use of Nonconventional Information Sources in a Vertical File," Reference Services Review 16, no.1-2 (1988): 95--96 7. Ib·d., 31 . 8. Peter Allison, "Stalking the Elusive Grey Literature/' College & Research Libraries News 5 (May 1987): 244--45. 9. Hodgson and Garoogian, "A Special Collection," 77. 10. Julie Still, "The Vertical File in Academic Libraries," Show-Me Libraries 39 (spring 1988): 37. 11 . Ibid., 37. 12. David Lane, "Your Pamphlet File Supports Apartheid," Library Journal115 (Sept. 1, 1990): 174-77. 13. Joy Thomas, "Rejuvenating the Pamphlet File in an Academic Library," Library Journal 110 (Oct. 15, 1985): 43-45. 14. Gronlund, "Pamphlets-A Question of Format," 9. 15. Maureen 0. Carleton and Catherine G. Cheves, "The Vertical File Enters the Electronic Age," in Readings on the Vertical File, 81-89. Originally published in Medical Reference Services Quarterly 8, no. 4 (winter 1989): 1-10. 16. Thomas, "Rejuvenating the Pamphlet File," 43. 17. Hodgson and Garoogian, "Special Collections," 77. 18. Allen, "The Information File," 57. 19. Juleigh Clark, "The Vertical File in South Carolina Academic Libraries," in Readings on the Vertical File, 104-08. Originally published in South Carolina Librarian 31 (spring 1987): 34-36. 20. Hodgson and Garoogian, "A Special Collection," 21. 21. R. L. Abbott, "Vertical Files Still Standing Tall," Unabashed Librarian 72 (1989): 25--27.