As the understanding of scholarship continues to deepen, "academic evaluation" has become a topic of perennial debate. In the contemporary context, quantitative assessment prevails and academic ecology is undergoing dramatic changes. Within this environment, the academic evaluation system faces three fundamental questions: Who is qualified to evaluate? By what standards should evaluation be conducted? Within what kind of environment should evaluation take place? As a critical nexus connecting scholars, academic outputs, and the evaluation system, the role of academic journal editors is dual in nature. They are both evaluators of academic work and subjects of ongoing evaluation themselves. Therefore, it is essential to promote consensus within the academic community in three key areas. First, the subject of evaluation should be reconstructed. This involves establishing a "community of scholars" composed of both disciplinary experts and academic editors. The collaboration between these two groups is crucial. This ensures the academic credibility and practical effectiveness of the evaluation. Experts contribute deep disciplinary knowledge, whereas editors provide holistic oversight, methodological rigor, and contextual judgment. Together, they form a complementary and balanced evaluative body. Second, transform evaluation standards should be clearly defined. This means moving beyond singular quantitative indicators toward a "four-dimensional" evaluation system. This system is centered on height, depth, novelty, and temperature. Height refers to a paper's ability to dissect the essence of phenomena. It also involves elevating findings to theoretical significance. Depth reflects the thoroughness of the analysis and the rigor of the methodology. It includes the capacity to reveal underlying patterns. Novelty denotes the contribution of new knowledge, perspectives, or materials. Such contributions stimulate scholarly interest and advance the field. Temperature embodies humanistic concern and ethical engagement in scholarly writing. It also includes the emotional resonance present, especially in the humanities and social sciences. This multidimensional framework helps distinguish genuine intellectual contributions from mediocre work. It also encourages scholarship that is not only rigorous but also socially and intellectually meaningful. Third, the ecology of evaluation should be optimized. This can be achieved by fostering a constructive interactive mechanism between academic journals and external evaluation agencies. Journals should actively utilize evaluation data for self-reflection and quality improvement. Simultaneously, they should engage with these agencies through feedback, dialogue, and collaborative research. This engagement helps shape more scientifically grounded and discipline-sensitive evaluation metrics. Such a bidirectional relationship aligns evaluation tools with the actual practices and values of academic communities. Consequently, it mitigates the distortion often caused by overly simplistic or metric-driven assessments. In conclusion, this paper argues that academic journal editors play a pivotal role. They act as curators, mediators, and shapers of academic value—a role often underrecognized. By redefining the evaluative subject, refining the standards of assessment, and redesigning the evaluative ecosystem, the Chinese academic community can develop a more professional, inclusive, and dynamic evaluation system. The proposed approach is grounded in the practical wisdom of editorial work. It offers a conceptual and operational framework that may also resonate with international discourses on research evaluation.