请高人鉴别 “大化所” 的这两篇文章算不算一稿多投?最近学习燃料电池方面的知识,检索到这两篇文章Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401与International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862惊人的发现这两篇文章的大部分图是一摸一样的,注意不是相似,是相同,而且投稿日期及其接近Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Received 10 January 2006; received in revised form 8 May 2006; accepted 12 May 2006Available online 18 July 2006International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862Received 17 January 2006; received in revised form 10 April 2006; accepted 19 May 2006Available online 27 July 2006大家鉴别一下,希望我理解的是错的,没有仔细的读全文,仅是从图表来看,下面是相同图的对比,注意是一模一样,不是相似:Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.1 vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.1Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.2 vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.2Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.3(a) vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.7Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.3(a) vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.3(a)Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.4(a) vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.4Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.4(b) vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.5Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.5 vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.9Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.6 vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.10Electrochimica Acta 52 (2006) 394–401Fig.8 vs. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1855 – 1862 Fig.11在International Journal of Hydrogen Energy这篇文章中除了Fig3(b)和Fig8在Electrochimica Acta这篇文章中没有找到外,其余的9张图与Electrochimica Acta这篇文章中的一模一样,即使一篇是通讯文章,一篇是全文,也不能有如此高的相似度吧,况且还不是这样,两篇均是全文,这是神马情况,请高手鉴别查看更多5个回答 . 11人已关注