The error margin is 2.0 Earth-masses, so it could actually be anywhere from 2.29 to 6.29 times the mass of Earth - or even higher, since these are lower limits.
Assuming that they're there and not just issues with the signal, it's pretty good news*. Hopefully it's closer to the bottom of that range (2-4 times Earth mass), because then I'd feel more confident that it's a rocky planet and not a failed-gas-giant-core turned water-planet. I don't think Kepler can find its radius, so our best bet is to try and direct-image it from Earth with planet-side telescopes (which used to be virtually impossible, but adaptive optics is good news).
One thing has me a little concerned - Steve Vogt. He was involved in that Gliese 581g debacle, where the team kept on insisting that the planet was there despite repeated independent verifications that showed that it was a mistake.
* Especially since it would be a potentially earth-like planet around a sun-like star, and not a "MEarth" (a potentially habitable planet around a red dwarf).