In a year filled with drama and hyperbole, the serials marketplace churned toward a future whose shape is the subject of fierce debate. Forecasts from commercial publishers touting collapse and disaster seemed oddly out of sync with the profits they enjoyed--around 25 percent on average. Nevertheless, in a market where prices continued to rise and bundled content continued to sell, some of the very publishers whose fortunes are made in scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals all but declared that the open access (OA) movement is apocalyptic in scope and will lead to the end of journals as they are known. Open access is no longer a subtext in the annals of the journals industry. It stands alone as an alternative to the existing system of journal publication, which most say is unsustainable in its current form. It can mean different things to different proponents--a shared path to many ends. Aside from the commotion over open access, the serials market continued to reflect the trends of recent years. Bundled content kept library and consortia budgets tied up and kept publishers' sales reps busy negotiating prices, one contract at a time. Serials agents and publishers continued to build infrastructure to manage online subscriptions in an era when list prices are being replaced by individualized deals. Mergers and rumors of acquisitions and buyouts renewed concerns about market consolidation. This year's "Periodicals Price Survey" looks at these and other factors shaping the journals marketplace. Three Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) databases--Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Science Citation Index--again provide the bulk of titles used in the study. In addition, the authors include data on titles in EBSCO Publishing's Academic Search Premier. (Contains 2 tables.)