Ok, but I think your examples are specific to the social sciences where the method used is not sufficiently close to the scientific method to be reliable enough. Hence you're likely to see systemic biases in junior and senior authors alike as the field may not converge to "truth".
But in fields that the method is closer to science (e.g. physics, chemistry, neuroscience), I would expect that the overall field is converging to the truth and that senior authors will therefore be more tuned in to the best estimate of truth or how to get to it than junior authors.
Yeah, but do you have a formal list of academic fields labeled as scientific by media/government but which are not actually scientific? The term "social science" doesn't cover it, as epidemiology is proving. Not many would call it a social science but the problems there are identical or frankly even worse. And what of climatology, another field where people construct complex models on relatively small datasets and can't do even small scale experiments? Is that also a social science? Clearly not.
Even in microbiology there are a huge number of papers that don't replicate.
To me it looks like the problems are general. They aren't restricted to a small set of social sciences.
But in fields that the method is closer to science (e.g. physics, chemistry, neuroscience), I would expect that the overall field is converging to the truth and that senior authors will therefore be more tuned in to the best estimate of truth or how to get to it than junior authors.