Bibliometric measurements are becoming omnipresent and crucially important for academic career decisions. The measured criteria induce strong incentives to align academics’ time and efforts. Based on a survey of economics and business scholars in German-speaking countries, this article empirically explores the interactions between scientific journal metrics and the behavior of authors in the publishing process. The impact different types of pressure have on their decisions is emphasized. In line with rational choice, authors generally move down in journal ranking as they resubmit their papers. While the process is highly influenced by random elements, the Scimago journal rank provides the best fit to researcher’s behavior. Doctoral students initially submit to lower ranked journals compared to higher academic positions, which is likely due to the time pressure they face. The empirical findings improve our understanding of strategic responses in the scientific publishing process. Qualified lotteries, along with other propositions, are suggested to mitigate adverse responses by academics.