Hi.

Basic question is how to write a follow up article with very similar methodology to my own previous moderately successful paper in the same journal. First one had two authors this is a monograph.

Specifically how much does the second reference the first in certain sections - intro, methods, discussion. They are both an analysis of open data on hospital restraint.

There is a small change to methods and and a small extension of methods but the man on the bus would see them as the same thing and the second one has a cherry on top.

I think this:

In favour of verbosity there’s a need to “making it a complete and readable and replicable in its own right”.

There are new things in the field and new idea so they go in.

Reader “interest” makes me want to have some “novelty” or “freshness” but that’s quite subjective and they can’t impair “clarity”.

I can’t just cut and paste and yet I feel weird rewriting things “for the sake of it”.

I am finding it easy to summarise points made in the first. The sequel is more confident about the views shared with the first paper so there is less prevarication, fewer modifiers.

The intro is going to treat the first paper objectively as part of the literature.

Any other pointers?