Hi, Ebrahim,

From the perspective of a social scientist, I frankly cannot imagine a dependent variable that cannot be associated in some fashion with others in the literature. Accordingly, I would suggest a broader perspective on your dependent variable. What are other constructs to which is is related? How does your conceptualization of your new construct the same or different from others? In other words, how would you argue for criterion and construct validity of your new variable?

Your arguments will most likely be subjective until such time as you can collect data that demonstrates the concurrent, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of your construct in comparison with others. Ultimately, the instrumentation to measure the construct will need to be subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Publication of your results is going to depend quite strongly on your arguments for the existence and measurement of your new construct. I remember sitting in a faculty candidates job talk while I was a doc student. He presented his research and asked for questions. Mine was quite simple, how did he distinguish between his "new" dependent variable and another construct often measured in other psychological studies? He did not have an answer. He did not get the job.

Good luck!

can the discussion of the results be completely by subjective argumentation and rationalization as there are no studies testing the same dependent variable? How to overcome the demand of readers or journal editors for input of literature into the topic if there is none?

Your conceptual framework / dependent variable (DV) should underpin on previous / existing theoretical framework / theory because researcher can't research in / underpin on "vacuum".  If there is no relevant theory you can underpin on, you might select the closest theory from another discipline.  E.g. based on your question, you mentioned your DV questionnaire is adapted from various sources - perhaps you can review the literature on those various sources to evaluate what theoretical framework / theory they are underpinning on so that perhaps you can underpin on their theory etc.  Wishing you all the best.

In writing up an article such as this, you should concentrate on the likelihood that you will be reviewed by those who are recognized as experts in the field. So, you need to appeal to them by showing how useful your new approach will be for future research. In other words, if there is not prior theory to justify your choice, then emphasize the opportunities that it will create.

For better or worse, you should also avoid being too critical of the existing work in the filed, because you will be reviewed by those who had a stake in creating that field. So, your stance would be something like emphasizing how your new concept can make work in your field even better better.