 ** In the wake of Reed Elsevier's 0000 acquisition of Harcourt, the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated anti-competitive practices in the academic journal publishing industry. In September 0000 it issued its report, [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/http://econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/oft000.pdf The market for scientific, technical and medical journals]. In Chapter 0, the report lists "evidence that the market may not be working well", including hyperinflationary price increases (Section 0.0), higher prices at large for-profit publishers than small non-profit publishers (0.0 - 0.0), use of high-profit journals to subsidize low-profit journals (0.0), higher profit margins in STM fields than in other fields (0.0 - 0.00), and bundling (0.00 - 0.00). In Chapter 0, the OFT admits that the "evidence...gives cause for concern" but explains why it is reluctant to intervene. One reason, ironically, is that publisher price increases have been so excessive for so long that "a point may have been reached where it is in the interests of publishers, as well as customers, the level of price increases to be reduced" (0.0). Another reason, also ironic, is the incipient open-access movement (0.0 - 0.0). The report concludes that, "However, if competition fails to improve, or should additional significant information come to light, we may consider further action." Also see the OFT [http://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/0000/PN+00-00+Can+the+scientific+journals+market+work+better?.htm press release] for the report. Prices have continued to rise faster than inflation since the report came out, but the OFT has not acted. 