What kind of cognitive psych journals are receptive to clinicians without any publications?
(note: quotes are from useful comments on the question)


  "I think clinical psychology journals would be her best option either way. Without new data, comments from others about reviewing existing models and data are even more critical. Unfairly, scientists often don't like new theories or models being proposed by people without a scientific track record, so I would recommend a journal with double-blind review, so her ideas can be evaluated on their merits and not on her name recognition." -- DanM


With regard to a paper on ADHD in particular, 


  "One can generally advance a new model based on a review of the literature. In her manuscript, she might (1) review the relevant ADHD literature, (2) review relevant ADHD models, and (3) propose a new model that is based on (1) and overcomes limitations of the models in (2). She can also suggest how the model might be employed in clinical practice, and use anecdotal evidence mixed with scientific evidence from the literature to back this up. Without some kind of clinical trial(s) (as an evidence base), it's difficult to talk about the efficacy/effectiveness of her therapy." -- mrt


If she writes the kind of article requiring evidence, then her evidence should be something along the lines of this: 


  "Regarding evidence base: a key issue is whether she will be reporting the results of systematic data collection or anectodal observations. If she has consistent clinical notes, she could do a systematic retroactive data analysis (as in systematic chart reviews in medical research). More generally, clinical psychology journals (esp. those focusing on pediatric or developmental psychopathology or neuropsychology) will probably be more receptive to this kind of work than cognitive psychology journals." -- DanM