Based on questionnaires and in-depth interviews conducted from April to October, 2024 with 68 representative units selected from 6 449 academic journals nationwide, this paper systematically examines the current situation and challenges facing the editorial teams at China’s social science academic journals, identifying underlying causes and proposing development pathways aligned with high-quality development goals. The investigation reveals multiple difficulties, including frequent turnover of editors-in-chief, insufficient young editorial reserves, high proportion of part-time editors, misalignment between performance assessments and actual workloads, insufficient incentives, aging workforce demographics, and limited connection between career development and journal achievements. Specifically, most editors reported lower income levels than their peers in research and teaching positions, with only 40.8% considering their wages and salaries equitable. Performance evaluations also failed to account for substantial time spent on administrative duties and new media operations—responsibilities typically excluded from assessment systems. Over half of the surveyed journals lacked structured incentive policies, while the rest demonstrated poor implementation. Regarding team composition, concentrated retirements and recruitment challenges have created a generational gap, with editors under 35 accounting for merely 14.7% of respondents. Misalignment in institutional positioning, professional title conflicts, and the disconnect between editing and research activities further constrain career development and team stability. Deep-seated reasons include management disparities stemming from diverse journal sponsors, hindering the establishment of unified talent management mechanisms. Institutional recognition of editors’ scholarly contributions remains inadequate, and the widespread “separation between editing and research” restricts career advancement. To address these challenges, this paper recommends strengthening interdisciplinary editorial training, promoting a collaborative “university–journal” education mechanism, and enhancing editors’ academic and digital competencies. It also suggests piloting a division of labor and outsourcing non-core tasks. Exploring an “integration of editing and research” model could break down identity and professional barriers. Incorporating editorial talent development into journal evaluation systems would foster increased policy and resource support from sponsors. This paper seeks to establish a comprehensive talent support system conducive to high-quality journal development, offering insights for optimizing editorial teams and enhancing journal quality and impact.