I think academics are aware that the problem just circles around in a different form. You can't escape the cycle of requiring any form of 'validation' or 'approval' from peers, and you have to rely on some 'in-system' validation mechanic that ultimately comes down to trust.
For an academic, you have to trust that both the individual producing the work and the individuals reviewing the work aren't getting sucked in by the hype or their own personal biases/needs/ego. As an academic, one has to trust and assume one's own work reflects one's own understanding to the highest possible caliber, and that once that work is released, that it will be examined rigorously to the same caliber professionally, academically.
But it's still a question of "having to trust in things you can't test for without changing the functioning of the approval/validation mechanic". Whether that's getting lost in the details of your own work (having so much knowledge it feels like you have none), or getting lost in the actual system itself - is the system designed so that bad actors are caught and weeded out - and honestly, it's my opinion that one singular mind can not manage all of this. But I think for many academics, the system is designed where, if one singular mind appears to mismanage any of this, they are labeled a bad actor.
So self awareness is more, something that just goes unrecognized and unnoticed, because it's considered a weakness to show it. The same thing happens in business, same behavior functionally. The way it presents itself is different because, there's a different yardstick. Money, quantifiable, measurable. But to the people actually moving large quantities of money around, it has as much potential for greatness or disaster as an enlightened intellect.