In research terms nursing has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. The focus within the discipline has been to encourage the expansion of research as a project-based activity, with insufficient emphasis placed on programmatic work or rigorous research training. Internationally, interest in the concept of quality and relevance of research has been increasing, especially in countries where universities are mainly state funded. In many western countries state-funded services have come under close scrutiny. It is perhaps easier to evaluate the funds spent by universities on education, as the output is graduates who populate the labour market. However, it is not as straightforward to locate the benefits of the tax dollar spent on research. In a context where demand for funds for research outstrips supply, it is reasonable to be selective in where and how the research dollar is spent. One way of approaching selectivity is to concentrate on recognising and rewarding good quality research and distributing funds accordingly. Since 1986 in the UK there has been a national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The principal drivers for national research assessment are to improve the quality of research, to ensure value for money, to encourage collaboration to avoid duplication and to build on excellence. The assessment is based on peer review by discipline-specific panels of experts. In 2003 New Zealand introduced the Performance-based Review Fund (PBRF) and the Australian government is in the process of introducing the Research Quality Framework (RQF). Both the PBRF and RQF are based predominantly on the UK RAE framework. There are differences between the three approaches. In the RAE and RQF the unit of assessment is a subject area; in the PBRF it is the individual. The RQF and RAE use a similar quality scale for output, with the highest grade indicating world leading (then internationally excellent, international standard, original and sound, falls below standard), whereas the PBRF compresses the top three grades into one grade ‘A’. In addition, the RQF has an impact scale, so research which is judged at least to be methodologically rigorous and of high originality will also be rated for impact on a scale depicting social, economic, cultural environmental or other benefits regionally, nationally or internationally. Discussions with nurses indicate a positive response to the notion of an impact scale. Caution will need to be exercised with respect to the differentiation between research (the purpose of the RQF) and development work, which is a distinctive feature of Australian nursing research. The RAE is notoriously unpopular amongst academics. RAE dissenters do not subscribe to the notion of an elite and argue that the creation of centres of excellence militates against the development of the discipline more broadly. The RAE is also criticised for relegating teaching to second place and wasting resources. In nursing some benefits have arisen out of the RAE. In 1992 only 21 schools of nursing completed the assessment; by 2001 the number had risen to 43 indicating an increase in research activity. In terms of overall performance, nursing as a discipline was ranked bottom with only four schools receiving a score of 5 (top score being 5 star). The outcome of the RAE was beneficial because additional resources were invested in the mid-range schools to enhance research capacity; we hope to see the benefits in terms of improved scores in the 2008 RAE. Similarly, in New Zealand additional funds have been made available to develop the research potential of nursing. Embedded within the process of a research selectivity exercise is a judgement about the quality of a single output, usually a publication in a journal. Journal impact factors and citations are widely used as proxies for excellence in science, but because much nursing research is published in journals without impact factors, in the RAE and PBRF papers have been read and panel consensus judgement made on quality. The judgement process is peer based and has the usual imperfections of peer review, but for nursing there is no real alternative. What is clear is that schools that do well in research have a certain critical mass and understand the concept of excellence. It is important for the future of nursing in the university sector that we raise our gaze and aspire towards excellence. The nursing profession needs to publicly endorse quality research and change the focus from individual research projects towards a more programmatic approach. The challenge for the future is to identify research leaders and to harness their energies to build sustainable programmes of research that meet the standards of international peer review, and impact on policy and practice.