I posted up information on IPCC publication deadlines, which are presumably there to ensure that authors do not play favorites. Here are dates of submission, acceptance and publication of some studies that have been discussed recently on this blog. These should be compared against WG1 deadlines of August 12, 2005 for being supplied to TSU, December 16 for being "published or in press" and end February as a drop dead date for final preprints.
Wahl, Ritson and Ammann was submitted on 3 October 2005, accepted on 27 February 2006 and published April 28, 2006. On its face, it failed to meet both the December and February deadlines – it merely got to December status in February. Purely hypothetically, IPCC reviewers might want to consider whether it met submission deadlines for even being supplied to TSU for inclusion in the First Draft. The possibility of its not being supplied for the First Draft is, of course, entirely hypothetical as this information is confidential. But since IPCC review is supposed to be done with an abundance of caution, I presume that diligent reviewers will check such things.
Hegerl et al [Nature 2006] was submitted on 8 July 2005, accepted on 28 February 2006 and published on April 20, 2006. This article does not describe the HC reconstruction. That is described in another article [Journal of Climate] which had not been accepted as at April 20, 2006, according to the Nature article. IPCC reviewers should ensure that any results attributed to Hegerl et al 2006 are actually supported in the NAture article; if they come from the Journal of Climate submission, then they should not appear. As to the Nature article, as with the Wahl et al 2006 article in Science, it did not meet either the December deadline for being "published or in print" since it was accepted only in February and did not meet the February drop-dead date as it only then arrived at the December milestone.
Wahl and Ammann [Climatic Change], not the rejected GRL article, was submitted on May 10, 2005 and accepted on February 27, 2006. No final preprint exists currently and as of today, it does not appear in the online publication list for Climatic Change. On an earlier occasion, we reported that there were dramatic changes between the version that existed in December and the accepted version, including the inclusion of verification r2 statistics that confirmed our findings in MM05a, MM05b. Again, this failed several milestones – it was not "published or in print" by December 16; no final preprint existed as at February 28 and substantial changes were made post December.
Dare I observe that there seems to have been lots of activity on this front on February 27-28. Of course, this last minute flurry was pointless under IPCC WG1 policies.
Osborn and Briffa  was submitted on 23 September 2005, accepted on 17 January 2006 and published on Feb 10, 2006. So it met the February deadline, but did not meet the December deadline of being "published or in print". It’s too bad since Briffa is a lead author. Diligent reviewers should also review their First Draft records to check whether a draft version of Osborn and Briffa was made available for the First Draft as it was supposed to be. As a lead author, I’m sure that Briffa would be expected to comply with the letter of all policies.
Again all this discussion is entirely hypothetical. No reader should conclude that any of these studies have been mentioned in the Second Draft of IPCC 4AR. That information is confidential. However, there’s no harm in saying that lead authors should not be permitted to circumvent rules in favor of their own publications, just as a general point. I’m sure that such things are unlikely to happen with IPCC, but you never know.