Update: I kept digging and found
acknowledgement of Amiga Action's review contributions on
page 5 of issue 10.
As the proud holder of a PHD in Doingstuffinawaythat'snotpropershoddyology, I have to point out that the glaring contrast in DTP styles with no explanation sticks out like a sore thumb.
Looking again now more closely, I can see that those Amiga Action pages are referenced in the index (albeit without attribution), yet the original page numbers have been obscured to ensure the reader's attention isn't drawn to them being out of sequence and the fact that they were taken from Amiga Action (each of the original page number boxes includes a reference to the magazine's title). After the inserted pages, MegaZone's number sequence commences as though the previous ones
had been re-numbered.
Also, the Amiga Action accolade/recommendation triangles have been replaced with MegaZone ones, removing the league rating reference, which wouldn't have made any sense unless that feature was reproduced too. Then in the summary box, the articles' authors have been removed to anonymise them. Again, the league roll call is missing. Nevertheless, they forgot to remove the 'Action info' headers.
Yes, so clearly not a recent scanning accident, but a deliberate effort to republish content.
With permission I expect, but surely they could have done it in a more professional way and without dismissing the original writers' contribution?
This sort of thing occurred in the UK too, though in those mags you'd tend to see a conspicuous acknowledgement of the contents' origins and an explanation of a 'sister' mag relationship if one existed.
In contrast, in some cases, you'd see the same reviews crop up in an Atari magazine with all reference to the Amiga removed. Incidentally, was that Amiga Action/ST Action? I can't remember now.
I wonder how many indigenous MegaZone readers imported Amiga Action from the UK and spotted the regurgitated content? I'd be a bit miffed if I'd paid for some of the same articles twice.