You demonstrate the same lack of comprehension of how the scientific world operates as most people. You seem to think that a scientists work is relied upon as somehow being trusted and becomes some sort of gospel, prescription or recipe that is blindly followed, but that is never the case.
An influential scientist paper only becomes influential because other scientits read the paper and discovers that the paper provides a way of analyzing a problem or measuring a phenomenon that others had not thought of before. The solution demonstrated, however, other scientists will replicate that calculation or that experiment for their own purposes. Either they will verify the result, confirming the original paper or refuting it.
The only advantage that a scientist's reputation brings him is that his papers will be more broadly read than those of other scientists. It means that they are also more carefully scrutinized than other scientists, and if he starts turning out whacky or incorrect stuff, his reputation will vanish in meteoric splendor. A flash and then gone.
With all respect, your opinion is not as sophisticated as you have come to believe. Although an academic may have excellent writing and composition skills, his works outside of economic theory and research are not entirely separate. The same neurons are firing in both realms and that does color the perceived quality of his academic writings. It is a pervasive aspect of the social construction of fields of inquiry. A lack of honesty in public discourse is not walled off and then the individual expresses absolute honesty in academic work. Character matters and I have seen the consequence of it in a large number of academic works. A strongly biased view is more obvious in the social sciences than in, for example, physics, but bias does worm its way into academic works. As for peer review—that process has its value and its weaknesses.