'Credibility' is simply the generally-accepted opinion of the group. The whole peer-review process is nothing more than one big appeal to the popular opinion of philosophical naturalists. No one with a shred of critical-thinking skills would be surprised that the conclusions beg the question of philosophical naturalism.
"If, despite being shown how much effort is put into making science accessible to everyone, you still choose to believe that there are gatekeepers (who, by definition, exist to keep the knowledge out of your reach), then spending more time trying to demonstrate the accessibility of science is a total waste."
I suppose that the best thing for you to do is to set something up that will allow you to declare victory and abandon the field.
I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem, and the doctor proposes a treatment that was first described in the peer-review literature (such as antibiotics for bacterial infection), do you reject that treatment? Would you be more accepting of a treatment you first read about in some free new-age publication you found lying about someplace?
If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs, are the certifications hanging on the wall a signal for you to walk out? Do you instead look for someone who has some tools and talks big about being better at car repair than any certified mechanic?
If you need to have your taxes done, does seeing that the accountant is a CPA make you turn around and walk out that door? Do you instead seek out some high school math whiz, because, after all, quality-control mechanisms really are nothing more than gate-keepers meant to keep out people who really know what they're talking about?
BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion.