From the structural point of view, TM and P atoms are strongly bonded, straining the phosphorene surface due to that the TM-P bond lengths are slightly shorter than the sum of their covalent radii. Consequently, TM dopants display different values of elevation, mostly accommodated inward into phosphorene and forming up to five bonds . In the case of the TM adatom doping, the TM atoms are outwards from the phosphorene surface, where the dopant elevation decreases monotonically with respect to the dopant covalent radius . Regarding the stability, the substitutionally doped phosphorene has higher binding energies (up to 8.3 eV) than the adatom doped phosphorene(up to 4.6 eV) , but both doping schemes are expected to be stabilized by chemical bonds (excepting Zn) as a result of the hybridization between d orbitals of TM dopants and 3p orbitals of phosphorene . The wide range of binding stability reached by TM dopants in phosphorene has been explained due to the filling of the d orbitals through the TM series, causing several changes in the properties of phosphorene such as bandgap decreasing due to midgap states, electron charge-transfer from TM to the phosphorene nanosheet due to electronegativity differences, and induced magnetic moments by spin-polarized dopants . Despite the latter, there is no major information about the specific role of physical/chemical phenomena driven the doping stability among different dopants (such as orbital interactions, electrostatic, polarization, dispersion, charge transfer, and/or Pauli repulsion).