Last month they did publish an [erratum](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6352/eaao5843
) to the original [Science](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/715
) article detailing the findings. They claim their conclusions stand. I'm sure that several groups are working to replicate the work and that it is under some intense scrutiny. Especially in a field like this, where there are a handful of groups with the necessary expertise to replicate the work, it can take a while. As I understand it, just replicating it is a feat on the order of the original discovery.
Even without experimental proof, we know about as well as we possibly can that metallic hydrogen does exist without the need for lab results.
By mass, Jupiter is *mostly* liquid metallic hydrogen. We still haven't seen it directly, but literally no other substance could fit the bill for such low density to fit the planet's mass, yet high conductivity to fit the planet's enormous magnetic field.
Don't get me wrong - lab results are still important, because while tons of computer simulations predict the properties of metallic hydrogen, there are probably still a few surprises about the material waiting for us. Nonetheless, even if this study is debunked, gas giants provide ample evidence that metallic hydrogen does exist.
**EDIT** to add some background: To be clear, researchers have been claiming metallic hydrogen in the lab for over 20 years now, usually creating it for a split-second with some kind of implosion. Citations start with [Weir, et al (1996)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.1860
), conductivities were measured by [Ternovoi, et al (1999)](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921452698013039
), deuterium was made metallic by [Celliers, et al (2000)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5564
), claims of *atomic* metallic hydrogen were made by [Badiei, Holmlid (2004)](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/16/39/034/meta
), and so on.
What's so different about this detection is that it's the first claim of *solid* metallic hydrogen, which is difficult since it must be at high enough pressure to be metallic, but also cold enough to be solid.