Being an expert in something doesn't require being an author of a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject.
Journal articles are written to communicate information to those who couldn't perform the experiment/research themselves, either because they have their own research areas (overlapping or not) or because they simply aren't researchers.
No one person is going to have enough depth and breadth to satisfy your requirements. Not even textbook authors would meet them.
Scientists, as part of their training, learn to quickly dissect papers written by others and assimilate the information to the point where they can often make modifications and create experiments that improve on the original or answer a related question not addressed by the first. This is not dissimilar to the way that programmers can take a program written by another and modify/extend it.
You're weirdly focused on this "argument from ultimate authority" instead of simply evaluating the claims and the data that support them. Googling a few of the terms in the article that you're unfamiliar with would be a more useful way to spend your time.
Though first, if you're going to make an informed criticism of a scientist's publication record, you might do well to have enough experience with searching for publications to know that a world-class scientist doesn't always have all of his publications on his website. That was a highlight reel of decades of research [0].
Yet neither of these folks seem to be doing primary research in the particular area they are teaching the course in.
Oakley's peer-reviewed resume on this is quite scarce: http://www.barbaraoakley.com/articlesandreviews.html
Sejnowski is similarly light: http://www.salk.edu/scientist/terrence-sejnowski/publication...
Are we going to wind up with another "10,000 hours" debacle?