What qualifies as a research publication?
Your criteria are close, but (at least for computer science) not quite right.


Research: the paper must describe a novel contribution to some field of inquiry.  Whether a paper makes a novel (and correct and interesting) contribution is often determined through formal peer review, but not always.  Peer review is almost always a formal requirement for a paper to "count" for purposes of formal evaluation for promotion and tenure, but not necessarily for building one's reputation as a researcher. (It's quite common for breakthrough results in theoretical compute science to be announced and discussed in blogs months before they undergo formal peer review.)
Publication: The paper must be, at least in principle, accessible to the public.  Two reasonable prerequisites are that the paper has a DOI, and that it is published either in a serial with an ISSN or in a book with an ISBN, but one could make a reasonable case that PDfs on researchers' personal web pages, blog and newsgroup posts,  and even StackExchange answers are "publications".  (Certainly there are fields, like chemistry, in which journals will not publish anything that has previously appeared on the web, on the grounds that it is "already published".)  There is absolutely no requirement that the paper be printed on dead trees to be considered "real".


In particular, I would classify most ArXiv preprints as "research publications", despite the lack of peer review and the absence of dead trees.