FORGERY...

Despite those arbitrary rejections and academic discrimination, my performance based on the portion of my achievements and publications that was accepted by the evaluators was still rated EXCELLENT in all three areas of evaluation. I was promoted Associate Professor, a rank that has the same standards as tenure. Below are excerpts from the evaluations of the Chair of the Department of Chemistry of my application for Associate Professor in January 2012. 

“these publications [# 6 and #7 in promotion folder] demonstrate Dr. Kouassi’s scholarly creativity. The chair commends Dr. Kouassi on these accomplishments and recommends that he continues to pursue his own uniquely creative research idea. Publication[s] #6 could serve as springboards for competitive NIH-AREA grant applications.... the chair congratulates Dr. Kouassi for his important scholarship and professional activities and encourages him to continue to build his research program at WIU” … Dr. Kouassi has consistently received a rating of Excellent in each of his probationary years by both the chair and the DPC.

The Chemistry Department Personnel (DPC) made the following statements on the same articles:

“Careful review of the documentation provided by Dr. Kouassi demonstrates that he met the DC requirements for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor… The DPC finds that critical requirement of 2 peer-reviewed publications where the faculty member is the principal author or a major contributing author in the DC has been met by Dr. Kouassi for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor as stipulated in the DC for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor by Publications # 6 and 7.” 

Doc 7 is the Chair and DPC evaluations of my application for promotion to Associate Professor in 2012. 

On October 9, 2012, I went to the Office of the Provost to request a copy of this evaluation as Dr. Rose McConnell recommended. I found out that paragraphs in the initial evaluation of the DPC have been replaced by new ones. On November 9, 2012, I again found out that Rose McConnell had forged the evaluation of my application for PAA she initially approved. The combination of those events prompted me go to the Office of the Provost to request a copy of each evaluations of my performance from PY1 to PY5 for verification. It was shocking to see that the copies I was given at the Office of the Provost were also forged except the first page. New pages and paragraphs had been inserted to replace the original ones. For example, comparing the DPC’s evaluation of the PY4 I received in 2010 with the copy of the same evaluation handed to me by the Office of the Provost in November 9, 2012, it was evident that the later was a hybrid document made of the first page of the true PY4 evaluation of the DPC, part of the Chair’s evaluation of my PY4, and a new narrative from the Chair. Important paragraphs in which the DPC praised my performance and approved four of my articles in 2010 no more existed. In the original and true DPC evaluation of my PY4, the DPC made the following statement: 

“During the PY4 evaluation period, Dr. Kouassi has one manuscript that has been submitted for publication in Current Nanoscience, where he is a single author. Based on the research performed at WIU, Dr. Kouassi and his students had submitted another manuscript to a peer-reviewed international journal, which has come back for revision based on reviewer’s comments. Dr. Kouassi and his co-workers are currently under preparation for publication in peer-review international journals such as Current Nanoscience and Journal of Food Chemistry. In the opinion of the DPC, Dr. Kouassi is taking active steps in getting his research published in reputed journals and the DPC feels that Dr. Kouassi is making timely progress in the area to meet the DC criteria for tenure and promotion.”

 In the last paragraph of the narrative on scholarly and professional activity in the original DPC evaluation, it can read: 

“The DPC applauds Dr. Kouassi on his research activities and his attempts to secure external support for his research at Western....” 

These paragraphs no more existed in the version produced by the Office of the Provost. The evaluation of Service Activities was also forged to the point that entire paragraphs supposedly written by the DPC were narrated by “the Chair”.  See Doc 11-Chair’s original evaluation of my PY4, Doc 12-DPC’s original evaluation of my PY4, Doc 13-The hybrid and forged evaluation of the DPC of my PY4 handed to me by the Office of the Provost of WIU. 

Those falsifications and forgeries were fraudulently and methodically inserted to my personnel file in prelude to WIU plan to reject my 10 peer-reviewed articles, although most of which were previously accepted. In 2010, the DPC stated in his evaluation of my PY4 that I should publish in “peer-review” journals such as Current Nanoscience”. That was exactly what I did. The DPC also asserted that I have submitted articles “for publication in reputed journals”. 

Keeping such information in my personnel file could not serve the plan to get rid of me. That is why WIU officials forged my evaluations in my personnel file.

During my promotion to Associate Professor in 2012, Rose McConnell and the DPC accepted my article #6 published in Current Nanoscience in 2011. The DPC wrote in his evaluation that I had 100% contribution and the Chair congratulated me for my important scholarships. In 2013, the same article was rejected by both the DPC and Rose McConnell with the pretext that Current Nanoscience was not a peer-review journal. The DPC lied that my contribution to this article was less than 50%, although I was a single author. The invitation letter of the Editor of Current Nanoscience is shown as Doc 14, and Doc 15 is one example of the 5 letters Professor Gowda wrote to assess my contribution to articles I co-authored with him.