Background <p>Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect more than 1.7&#xa0;billion people worldwide, primarily in low- and middle-income countries. Despite their high burden, NTDs remain underfunded and receive fragmented research attention. Research priority-setting provides a systematic approach to align limited resources with the most pressing needs. While several priority setting exercises have been conducted for NTDs, their findings have not been synthesized. This study aimed to systematically map the published research priority-setting exercises for NTDs, synthesize their methodologies, stakeholder involvement, and thematic priorities.</p> Methodology <p>We conducted a systematic mapping review of studies published in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to March 28, 2025. Eligible studies were those that explicitly reported research prioritization for at least one WHO-listed NTD. Data were extracted on study design, geographic scope, prioritization methods, stakeholder engagement, and outcomes, and were analyzed descriptively. Reported priorities were classified into six domains: (1) health systems and service delivery, (2) diagnostics and therapeutics, (3) surveillance and data systems, (4) community engagement and health education, (5) integration and coordination, and (6) equity, policy, and implementation research.</p> Results <p>Of the 1,678 records, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Most were mixed-methods (<i>n</i> = 10) and conducted at the country (<i>n</i> = 5) or regional level (<i>n</i> = 5). Delphi was the most used framework (<i>n</i> = 6). Fourteen (out of 15) studies engaged clinicians, policymakers, and researchers; 12 involved NGOs; 8 included vulnerable populations; 6 included patients. Lymphatic filariasis was the most frequently prioritized NTD (<i>n</i> = 7), followed by soil-transmitted helminths and schistosomiasis (<i>n</i> = 5 each). Research priorities clustered around health system strengthening (6/15 studies), community engagement (7/15 studies), and equity-oriented implementation research (10/15 studies).</p> Conclusion <p>Research priority-setting for NTDs has expanded in recent years but remains heterogeneous in methodology, stakeholder inclusiveness, and transparency. Findings also call for caution against disease prioritization approaches that focus only on high-prevalence NTDs which risk overlooking less common NTDs and the populations affected by them. Six cross-cutting domains of research priorities were identified across the studies, largely consistent with the WHO NTD Roadmap. The identified domains can guide WHO regional offices and national programs in updating research roadmaps, explicitly linking priorities to policy and implementation pathways to accelerate progress toward global NTD targets.</p>