The New York Times has deftly adapted to the demands of digital journalism, but it needs to change even more quickly, according to an internal report that recommends the company expand training for reporters and editors, hire journalists with more varied skills and deepen engagement with readers as a way to build loyalty and attract the subscriptions necessary to survive.

The report, released to The Times newsroom on Tuesday, culminates a year of work by a group of seven journalists who were asked by Dean Baquet, the executive editor, to conduct a review of the newsroom and determine a blueprint for its path forward.

Titled "Journalism That Stands Apart," and known internally as the 2020 report, the document provides a set of broad principles to accelerate the transformation while maintaining a commitment to high-quality journalism.

The report comes at a particularly sobering time for the legacy media industry. The steep and continuous decline of high-margin print advertising has led to significant financial challenges for most newspapers, which in turn are cutting costs and trying to find new revenue sources.

News organizations, including The Wall Street Journal and Gannett, have made significant cuts in staffing; The Journal is currently conducting a newsroom review similar to that of The Times, called WSJ2020.

Among the other recommendations in The Times's report were reducing duplicative layers of article editing, and having visual experts play "the primary role covering some stories" — part of an urgent call for more visual journalism. The report also calls for a renewed focus on diversity within The Times as a way of ensuring that the paper's journalists "reflect the audience we seek."

"The world is changing really rapidly," David Leonhardt, a columnist who led the group's work, said in an interview. "We have to keep up, and even get ahead of it."

In a note to the newsroom, Mr. Baquet and Joseph Kahn, The Times's managing editor, endorsed the group's recommendations, saying they outlined an "opportunity we have to produce an even more vital, more authoritative, more indispensable" news report.

The 2020 group acknowledged "budget realities" that would affect newsroom turnover, but it did not identify specific areas to be cut. Mr. Baquet and Mr. Kahn, however, went beyond the report and more bluntly addressed the need for staff cuts, saying that moving away from "duplicative and often low-value line editing" would lead to reductions in the editor ranks.

"Let's not be coy," they wrote. "The changes will lead to fewer editors at The Times."

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Baquet acknowledged that The Times had long valued its meticulous editing, and reducing its editor ranks represented a "significant cultural transformation." But, he said, "I do not believe that eliminating some of that editing will make us a lesser institution."

The plan to cut back on editors reflects a broader effort by legacy publications to streamline their operations and align themselves with leaner digital media companies, which built their newsrooms without the kind of multilayered editing process inherent in print production.

"If you look at any newsroom that was built for a digital environment, they don't have anything like the editing structure that The Times has," said Joshua Benton, the director of the Nieman Journalism Lab. "On the one hand, that is something that The Times is differentiated through. But on the other hand, if you do need to become more efficient, then some reduction there does make sense."