Expanding on this a little bit... I searched in Google Scholar on patent reform, and my fifth result was an article titled "Patent reform: A mixed blessing for the US economy?" that was published in "Business Review" in 1999. Checking Ulrich's, there are seven different journals with that title (published in Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Canada, etc); none of them are peer reviewed.
Google Scholar is an interesting thing to me. Its function of showing you what other works cite a particular article kinda mirrors SSRN's function of giving weight/gravity to an author (in the "look how relevant I am, all these things quote me" sense). As a quick litmus test, if the source you're looking at has been cited a bazillion times, you can at least tell that it's widely accepted work (if not necessarily quality).
Peer review is a different creature though. Rather than lending credence to a work by pointing to the number of things that cite it (like SSRN or Google Scholar), peer review submits an article for scrutiny by others within the relevant field prior to it being published in the first place (this is all just my understanding of the process, mind you). In that, there's a case to be made in saying it's more rigorous in setting the bar for scholarly publication. Of course it's just as plausible that my article is submitted for review to a couple other loony fringe dwellers like myself, and where does that leave you
Googling bad peer review will give you an idea of where peer review fails in some cases (the reviewer didn't understand the work, for one).
Anyway, if you have access to it, you can see in Ulrich's whether a journal is refereed by looking for the, uhm, whatever that symbol is (I think they're going for gown and stole):
Edit: Also, to be fair, most of the stuff you're going to find in Google Scholar probably is going to be peer reviewed. I just cherry picked one that wasn't to point out that it isn't always necessarily going to be.