Retracted on the 17th of April, 2020 by the Journal’s owner request dated April 12th 2020. The type of retraction – plagiarism. The owner of the journal was asked to retract this article because of plagiarism. The request came from the author of the dissertation, which was published a year before the publication of the article. The author insisted that there was significant plagiarism in the article that could not be adjusted. Editorial staff carried out an investigation into plagiarism in the article published. When the manuscript was submitted to the Journals for consideration, the authors signed the Cover letter and attested to the fact that their manuscript is an original research and has not been published before. After that, the manuscript was accepted for consideration by the Managing Editor and was tested for plagiarism using the iThenticate program. Plagiarism was not detected. Later, after the article complaint and the statement of plagiarism, we used all the sources and resources provided by the complainant, the article was re-tested for plagiarism, and plagiarism was established with a similarity index of 69%. According to the results of the investigation, the editorial board decided to retract the article on April 17, 2020. The authors were notified of such a decision and reported that they accept and do not dispute the retraction decision.

In Fig. 1(a) and (b) plot of KJ as a function of aspect ratio of oxide nodules for different depths using unirradiated and irradiated material properties is shown. Also depicted in this figure are the reported values of threshold stress intensity factors above which crack growth by Delayed Hydride Cracking is possible. It is evident form figures that in cases of unirradiated material, oxide nodules having aspect ratios less than two and depths more than 350 mm can initiate DHC whereas nodules having aspect ratios less than 2.5 and depths more than 200 mm can initiate DHC in irradiated material.

Doctors as medical workers are at the forefront of health services for Covid-19 patients. During the pandemic, doctor is the profession that has the highest risk in handling Covid-19 patients. In this case, it is appropriate if doctors get legal protection in carrying out their profession. So, what is the actual form of legal protection that doctors have received so far in handling Covid-19 patients? Have the existing regulations accommodated this protection?. The method of research which used in this research was normatif by examining the law which is conceptualized as a norm or rule that applied in society, and becomes a reference for everyone's behavior. The results of the study indicated that there were preventive and repressive measures which were as means of legal protection for doctors during Pandemic. Preventive efforts can be interpreted as steps or ways that can be taken to prevent an event that has legal consequences in the form of fulfilling obligations as a doctor, namely by carrying out the profession in accordance with professional standard, professional service standard, and standard operating procedures, completing administration in medical practice such as informed consent. and medical records, getting vaccines, providing incentives. While repressive efforts are defined as steps or method which taken if an event that results in law has occurred in the form of providing compensation to doctors who died, giving awards for services, bearing medical expenses for exposed doctors, and prosecution for criminal acts towards people who do not orderly implement health protocols. The legal protection of medical workers in handling Covid-19 is evident in the fact that these medical workers have received legal protection in the form of supervision and guidance carried out by the Central Government, Regional Government or their Work Agencies. It shows that existing regulations have accommodated legal protection for doctors during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The business owners begin to think that these assets cryptocurrency this better than the economic and law, to be determined as the company assets. The aim research is to analyze the problem of the legitimacy of the use of digital currency limited liability company as company assets. At the moment, currency digital is still recognized as asset commodities in the aspect of juridical. Cryptocurrency will not be recognized by the government as currency should as the rupiah. The obstacles can be classified into 3 (three) aspects, namely philosophical, sociological and juridical aspects. The solution is takes the specific rules that digital currency becomes a tool of payment as rupiah. The legitimacy that assets crypto can be classified as company assets seen in trade minister regulation no 99 years 2018 and regulations bappebti number 5 years 2019 . The challenge and a solution in implementing culture are to make an asset in crypto as real asset companies should be increased, t begins with fix related digitalization infrastructures like the internet, gadget and the others.