I don't want to pay to access gov funded research, but content that takes that research and either applies a better organizational structure or adds additional value seems worth paying for.
If the author of the book wasn't adding any value, you wouldn't need the book, you could just read the research.
The question is relevant to a lot of fields where the outcome of the research is not a technical research report, but is an actual book. This occurs a lot when studying history.
Interesting, I didn't even consider history books. I don't know enough about how history books are written or their economic model, but I would hope the people creating the proposal would research that as well.
Just having the research available isn't the full investment in a book that uses it. If the government further funds the book based on the research, maybe that would be appropriate. If, however, I invest time and money into writing a book that incorporates research, I'd want a return on that investment.
"I invest time and money into writing a book that incorporates research, I'd want a return on that investment."
If you're an academic, you won't get it. The way academic publishing works is that you do the research, write it up, prepare the illustrations, then sign over copyright of the whole lot to a publisher such as Elsevier. They will then publish the book, make a tidy profit, and pay you: nothing. Nothing at all.
What about a case where part of your of your effort, say half, in doing the research and writing a paper were supported by a government grant and the rest was supported by your employer or was unsupported. This may be typical of the rok done by a university faculty member or graduate student.
