Sorry but that's not the point GP was making: > One thinks that underwater basketweaving is overhyped. Another thinks that great work was done in the eighties,

Sorry but that's not the point GP was making: > One thinks that underwater basketweaving is overhyped. Another thinks that great work was done in the eighties, but all the interesting questions have been solved already. Then he cites three general Math journals as what the hiring committee can use to rank the candidates, not a journal specialized in underwater basket-weaving.