Find out in this month’s issue of the notices of the AMS
in theory
"Marge, I agree with you – in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory." — Homer Simpson
Find out in this month’s issue of the notices of the AMS
in theory 
Yeah, but look how badly computer science does in figure 2. Only astronomy ranks lower.
What this indicates to me is that the selection of journals that the Zentralblatt database indexes is more diverse than what one would traditionally consider as “mathematics” papers.
@ Doug Tygar: actually, as the caption of Figure 2 says, “The journal had no papers about the one subject at the bottom”, i.e., Astronomy. Same story for Figure 3.
@ Luca: within CS, isn’t the same as “formally generalist” flagship conferences (no names necessary), biased toward a small (someone might want to ironically say “well-guarded”) set of topic?
Interesting…”bias graph” seems like a good way to summarize a journal
Doug, why do you say “but”? The low ranking in figure 2 is the answer to the question in the title of the post.
I think that the reason for the low number of computer science papers in the proceedings of the AMS is simply that it wouldn’t occur to most of us to send a paper there, and the same may be true of other under-represented areas. I don’t think that the author is suggesting that the editors of those “generalist” journals are biased, but rather that the journals present a biased (in the statistical, not judgmental, sense) picture of the mathematical landscape.
Everyone knows that algebraic geometry is at the top of the math hierarchy and combinatorics is at the bottom.
Sheesh. Get with the program already!