A couple of corrections:
thinking a book is Deutero-Pauline is not the same as rejecting it.
I doubt it's as high as 60%. Figures as high ad 80% used to be quoted for Ephesians, but meta-studies indicate that it never actually got above about 60%, and that was back at the peak for skepticism on Pauline authorship 30 years ago. Since then the movement has been back towards accepting most of the books as actually Pauline.
To say that a book is Deutero-Pauline might not be the same as rejecting it for some scholars, but for most it's undoubtedly their nice way of saying it. And I'm pretty sure that 80% for Ephesians was fairly accurate - absolutely every book I picked up on the topic that has been written since 1950 claimed it wasn't by Paul - Introduction to the New Testament - Kummel (1966), Marxsen (1960), Perrin (NT Introduction: 1982), Raymond Brown (1997), Sturvy (Redrawing the Boundaries - 2008), Edgar Goodspeed, Richard Heard (I think), and the list goes on and on reject. Practically the only books I know of that accept it are JAT Robinson (Redating the New Testament - 1976), A.M. Hunter (INT - more like a commentary), and A. van Roon (Authenticity of Ephesians) who received a really harsh review by obviously someone who also thought Ephesians was inauthentic. Today it might be, thankfully, lower.
I can tell you how it stands from 1950-2000:
I. 1 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians - Universally accepted
II. 2 Thessalonians, Colossians - 60% reject it. 2 Thessalonians dated to more or less as that site has it 75-95 (since 1 Clement has it but the website erroneously dates it 95-140). Colossians is c.58-70 (John Dominic Crossan for the later date).
III. Ephesians - 80%. No one dates it earlier than 75-80 due to its (perceived) dependence on Colossians.
IV. 1 Peter - 85-120. Definitely not accepted as Petrine. Brown is about the only one who says it might have been written by Peter. (JAT Robinson and I think Donald Guthrie accept it).
V. 2 Peter - 100-150. Virtually no one accepts this book.
VI. Jude - 100+. Same as 2 Peter - no one thinks it was written by the apostle, but perhaps an early 2nd century church leader named Jude.
VII. James - 100+. Not by James (according to most).
VIII. Pastorals - Not by Paul (by virtually everyone except a handful of scholars - slightly better than for 2 Peter). 100+ A.D. by most.
IX. Hebrews - 70+ AD as date of composition. Not by Paul and I sort of agree with that judgment, though I cannot really be certain. I personally think it should be 60-65.
X. 1 John - Most actually think it was written by the final redactor (as they see it) of the Gospel of John. However, they say this was not the Apostle. 100+ AD.
XI. 2-3 John - Most scholars see these as written by an important Christian such as perhaps the Presbyter John mentioned by Papias. I think some consider it possible that the author was the same as that of 1 John and the Gospel, but certainly not the Apostle. 100+ AD.
XII. Revelation - Neither by the author of 1 John nor the Apostle. In this they might be correct.
XIII. The Gospels - Many scholars consider Mark the follower of Peter to have written Mark but I personally find that somewhat doubtful. The Gospels are assigned a date of 70-100 and I think that's about right. However, their content is I believe much more authentic than the identity of their authors and here the era after Bultmann/Dibelius/Wellhausen and the rest of the late 19th/early 20th century writers (such as K. L. Schmidt's Geschichte...) are the apex of absurdity.
XIV. Acts - Wendland, Dibelius, Haenchen, and so on have successfully confirmed that for the most part Acts is a reliable historical narrative for Paul's travels in its second half. However, from those that I've read, Haenchen's reasons for assigning the "Writer" hypothesis (that Luke created most of the narrative of Acts for the purpose of a "creative writer") are beyond ridiculous. I can give an example, but there's no point making the post longer. Acts is dated c.90 and I think that's about right. However, it was most certainly by a follower of Paul's as the we-sections attest (and many other things that point to a contemporary of the mid 1st century locations named).
Now if you honestly think that after this assessment scholars who maintain Colossians, Ephesians, and so on as Deutero-Pauline are not rejecting them, then you are purposefully deluding yourself.
But overall, the website earlychristianwritings[dot]com, I can assure you, has many erroneous statements and conclusions that my website at bible-apologetics[dot]com can show you (where I actually use arguments and not just quotes from authorities like him).
