The R&R paper was criticized from the start but it suited a mindset that was happy to use what ever was convenient. Many hack economic studies that suit the dominant agenda are published each month.

By happenstance, I know that Kenneth Rogoff is pretty much a professional liar, having made a survey of his predictions before and after the bubble (I found a pre-bubble interview with him deriding a doomsayer and a post-bubble interview with him being a doomsayer and expressing anger at the people, such his pre-bubble incarnation, who said everything was great). But I'm sure there are many, many Kenneth Rogoffs in the economics field, since much of it involves validating existing policy.

So the R&R paper probably influenced nothing, was just icing on a cake that was already baked. The discovery of the paper's errors, on the other hand, is more of an outre event. Unlike your average mediocre product, it just happened that this paper had these error that were so bad they couldn't be waved away. Well, these hacks are done, to be replaced by other hacks. The error discovery may force a short backtracking on austerity idiocy but I wouldn't count on it.